by wj
I think we are overdue for an explicitly Open Thread. So here are a couple of totally unrelated items to kick us off.
Item
The US Stimulus Checks (technically “Economic Impact Payments”) are finally coming out. Ours just arrived. While President Trump’s name is right there on the front, his signature (contrary to what I had expected) is not.
Everything I have read indicated that they would be $1,200 per person; $2,400 for a married couple filing jointly. At least if your income was under something like $75,000 per person. Yet when ours arrived, the amount was more like $890. For two. (And no, we don’t make anywhere near the threshold amount.) No document included to indicate how the amount was figured. In fact, nothing was in the envelope but the check itself. Seems a bit odd.
Has anyone else gotten their check yet? And did you see the same kind of lack of explanation?
Item
I see that, while Trump is pushing businesses to reopen, much of the stimulus money voted by Congress remains unspent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/05/18/treasury-coronavirus-bailout-fund-cares-act/
But then, talking about doing things is ever so much easier than actually doing things to help make them happen.
Item
NASA’s daily Astronomy Picture of the Day is one of my regulars. Today featured Valles Marineris: The Grand Canyon of Mars. What struck me was just how straight it is. In fact, if I didn’t know it was on a planet, I would have assumed that I was looking at a sphere which had gotten grazed by a bullet. Hmmm….
As noted — Open Thread
wj, I have knowledge of at least one person’s check (not mine, mine was direct deposit) that came in the mail and it had no explanatory enclosures.
But $890 seems very weird, esp. if you don’t make over the threshold amount. But I haven’t kept track of the fine print on this.
As to APOD: Could a comet have grazed the surface? The blurb on the site doesn’t mention anything like that, so I suppose someone has a reason not to suspect it.
wj, I have knowledge of at least one person’s check (not mine, mine was direct deposit) that came in the mail and it had no explanatory enclosures.
But $890 seems very weird, esp. if you don’t make over the threshold amount. But I haven’t kept track of the fine print on this.
As to APOD: Could a comet have grazed the surface? The blurb on the site doesn’t mention anything like that, so I suppose someone has a reason not to suspect it.
Janie, I was thinking something more like an iron or stony asteroid/meteor myself. Just because I would expect a comet to melt substantially, and thus get significantly smaller, in the course of a collision.
I have no idea if anyone has even speculated on it. Let alone run some grazing impact tests with different kinds of “bullets” to see what might happen.
Janie, I was thinking something more like an iron or stony asteroid/meteor myself. Just because I would expect a comet to melt substantially, and thus get significantly smaller, in the course of a collision.
I have no idea if anyone has even speculated on it. Let alone run some grazing impact tests with different kinds of “bullets” to see what might happen.
wj — yes, of course, an asteroid or something like that would be much more likely than a comet.
I hiked in the Grand Canyon several times when I was young, once for two weeks. It is one of the most fascinating and beautiful places I’ve ever seen. I was surprised to learn that it was formed (too busy to look up whether this is old science) not just by the river carving down through the layers, but by the river carving through layers that were being uplifted over millions of years.
From the rim, it looks just like the postcards. From down inside the Canyon, it varies from one layer to the next. The inner canyon is a whole different world from the upper/outer.
One of my trips was in November — it was wintry on the rim and like a New England July day at the river. (~1 mile elevation difference.)
My last trip was in 1984 — so long ago! Between 1972 (first time) and 1984, it had gotten so popular for hiking that a permit system had been instituted for overnight camping. We got a permit for a camping spot that had us sleeping in the arms of Zoroaster.
To get there we had to hike along a trail where, if you lost your footing, you’d slide right down to the river (not gently!) and be gone. I had no trouble with it — it was really a pretty good trail, and on the way into the campsite I didn’t think much about it. But my subconscious was taking note, and I had some long wakeful hours in the tent, late in the night, thinking: Oh shit, I’ve got to hike back across that?
Well, you did say it was an open thread.
wj — yes, of course, an asteroid or something like that would be much more likely than a comet.
I hiked in the Grand Canyon several times when I was young, once for two weeks. It is one of the most fascinating and beautiful places I’ve ever seen. I was surprised to learn that it was formed (too busy to look up whether this is old science) not just by the river carving down through the layers, but by the river carving through layers that were being uplifted over millions of years.
From the rim, it looks just like the postcards. From down inside the Canyon, it varies from one layer to the next. The inner canyon is a whole different world from the upper/outer.
One of my trips was in November — it was wintry on the rim and like a New England July day at the river. (~1 mile elevation difference.)
My last trip was in 1984 — so long ago! Between 1972 (first time) and 1984, it had gotten so popular for hiking that a permit system had been instituted for overnight camping. We got a permit for a camping spot that had us sleeping in the arms of Zoroaster.
To get there we had to hike along a trail where, if you lost your footing, you’d slide right down to the river (not gently!) and be gone. I had no trouble with it — it was really a pretty good trail, and on the way into the campsite I didn’t think much about it. But my subconscious was taking note, and I had some long wakeful hours in the tent, late in the night, thinking: Oh shit, I’ve got to hike back across that?
Well, you did say it was an open thread.
By wintry I mean there was snow on the ground… Just saving Michael Cain the trouble of reminding us that not everything is the same everywhere. 😉
By wintry I mean there was snow on the ground… Just saving Michael Cain the trouble of reminding us that not everything is the same everywhere. 😉
Yet when ours arrived, the amount was more like $890. For two.
$2400 – $890 is $1510.
I’m pretty sure that’s Jared’s cut.
Yet when ours arrived, the amount was more like $890. For two.
$2400 – $890 is $1510.
I’m pretty sure that’s Jared’s cut.
Fantastic pic of Mars, wj, and fantastic stuff on the Grand Canyon, Janie. I was once driving alone from LA to Santa Fe, and stopped on the way at the GC, and on the way back at Monument Valley. The latter was more extraordinary to me, but I think that was because I just looked down at the GC, whereas I drove down into MV and drove around it, alone, for a while. A never-to-be-forgotten fucking experience! (Expletive necessary, for reasons of emphasis!)
Fantastic pic of Mars, wj, and fantastic stuff on the Grand Canyon, Janie. I was once driving alone from LA to Santa Fe, and stopped on the way at the GC, and on the way back at Monument Valley. The latter was more extraordinary to me, but I think that was because I just looked down at the GC, whereas I drove down into MV and drove around it, alone, for a while. A never-to-be-forgotten fucking experience! (Expletive necessary, for reasons of emphasis!)
Here’s something that made me chuckle. Sadly, it doesn’t seem relevant to wj’s plight:
Here’s something that made me chuckle. Sadly, it doesn’t seem relevant to wj’s plight:
wj – If you had any possible liens against the check (like if you owe taxes) those were deducted from the amount. That’s the only explanation I’ve seen for the checks being less than the full amount.
Mine was directly deposited, so I was spared any enclosures. However, a couple weeks later, I got a freaking letter signed by OrangeFart patting himself on the back for “giving” me the money.
wj – If you had any possible liens against the check (like if you owe taxes) those were deducted from the amount. That’s the only explanation I’ve seen for the checks being less than the full amount.
Mine was directly deposited, so I was spared any enclosures. However, a couple weeks later, I got a freaking letter signed by OrangeFart patting himself on the back for “giving” me the money.
My wife and I used to work for a Mars geologist, so I’m always interested in good pics and new findings.
The most widely accepted theory about the Valles Marineris is that it is a crack in the crust that formed during planetary formation due to volcanism and plate tectonics. The closest equivalent here on earth would be the East African Rift.
https://www.space.com/20446-valles-marineris.html
My wife and I used to work for a Mars geologist, so I’m always interested in good pics and new findings.
The most widely accepted theory about the Valles Marineris is that it is a crack in the crust that formed during planetary formation due to volcanism and plate tectonics. The closest equivalent here on earth would be the East African Rift.
https://www.space.com/20446-valles-marineris.html
Casey, No liens that I’m aware of. I haven’t gotten this year’s taxes filed yet. And the last communication I had from the IRS (a few months back) was to inform me that they had redone my last return, and decided that they owed me $3.00.
Casey, No liens that I’m aware of. I haven’t gotten this year’s taxes filed yet. And the last communication I had from the IRS (a few months back) was to inform me that they had redone my last return, and decided that they owed me $3.00.
nous, thanks! The Great Rift Valley hadn’t occurred to me. (And I can’t plead ignorance, because I know of it. Sigh.)
nous, thanks! The Great Rift Valley hadn’t occurred to me. (And I can’t plead ignorance, because I know of it. Sigh.)
I don’t think it’s physically possible to ‘graze’ a planetary surface like that. The initial impact would vaporise a comet.
There is an explanation for the Tunguska event which suggests an iron meteorite grazed the Earth – but only its atmosphere, producing the recorded twin explosions on atmospheric entry and exit:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/493/1/1344/5722124
Even then, the calculations suggest that anything but an iron meteorite would have completely disintegrated.
I don’t think it’s physically possible to ‘graze’ a planetary surface like that. The initial impact would vaporise a comet.
There is an explanation for the Tunguska event which suggests an iron meteorite grazed the Earth – but only its atmosphere, producing the recorded twin explosions on atmospheric entry and exit:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/493/1/1344/5722124
Even then, the calculations suggest that anything but an iron meteorite would have completely disintegrated.
Nigel, wouldn’t it depend on both how big the incoming body was, and what angle it hit at? Something substantially bigger than the Tunguska (or Chelyabinsk) cases might fail to disintegrate. And for a canyon like Valles Marenaris you’d need quite a big body anyway. Something like the Chicxulub impactor, just at a shallower angle — say 5 degrees from horizontal rather than 60 degrees.
Nigel, wouldn’t it depend on both how big the incoming body was, and what angle it hit at? Something substantially bigger than the Tunguska (or Chelyabinsk) cases might fail to disintegrate. And for a canyon like Valles Marenaris you’d need quite a big body anyway. Something like the Chicxulub impactor, just at a shallower angle — say 5 degrees from horizontal rather than 60 degrees.
Florida was already looking increasingly problematic for Trump. That due to covid-19, in particular to the exception that the elderly seem to take to Republican comments that it was preferable that they die to having the economy suffer.
But then, this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-guts-florida-law-requiring-felons-to-pay-fines-before-they-can-vote/2020/05/24/a7f553ba-9c3a-11ea-a2b3-5c3f2d1586df_story.html
Considering that it’s the Republican governor and legislature which was attempting to neutralize the amendment to the Florida constitution allowing ex-felons to vote, it seems unlikely many of them (some 1.5 million of them) will vote for the GOP. And it’s not like that many votes separated the two parties.
Just to be clear, the judge didn’t, quite, toss out the law. He just said it can’t go into effect without a system to tell people whether they have cleared the new hurdle to register. If the state can’t get someone an answer in 21 days, they get to register. With no penalty if it turns out later they weren’t eligible.
Florida was already looking increasingly problematic for Trump. That due to covid-19, in particular to the exception that the elderly seem to take to Republican comments that it was preferable that they die to having the economy suffer.
But then, this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-guts-florida-law-requiring-felons-to-pay-fines-before-they-can-vote/2020/05/24/a7f553ba-9c3a-11ea-a2b3-5c3f2d1586df_story.html
Considering that it’s the Republican governor and legislature which was attempting to neutralize the amendment to the Florida constitution allowing ex-felons to vote, it seems unlikely many of them (some 1.5 million of them) will vote for the GOP. And it’s not like that many votes separated the two parties.
Just to be clear, the judge didn’t, quite, toss out the law. He just said it can’t go into effect without a system to tell people whether they have cleared the new hurdle to register. If the state can’t get someone an answer in 21 days, they get to register. With no penalty if it turns out later they weren’t eligible.
Nigel, wouldn’t it depend on both how big the incoming body was,
For what it’s worth, also too (h/t Snarki), Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than earth.
I’m not pushing the meteor idea, what the heck do I know, I just think it would be a different set of trade-offs for Mars.
Nigel, wouldn’t it depend on both how big the incoming body was,
For what it’s worth, also too (h/t Snarki), Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than earth.
I’m not pushing the meteor idea, what the heck do I know, I just think it would be a different set of trade-offs for Mars.
JanieM – Mars does appear to have many more impacts per year.
https://www.space.com/21198-mars-asteroid-strikes-common.html
JanieM – Mars does appear to have many more impacts per year.
https://www.space.com/21198-mars-asteroid-strikes-common.html
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is scheduled to head for the ISS with two people on board on Wednesday. The head of NASA’s human spaceflight program resigned this past Monday. Everyone says the two weren’t related. I suspect that’s true, and that the resignation is Boeing related: either the still-unfolding disaster that is Boeing software development that happened on his watch, or all the extra money that was given to Boeing to meet the manned vehicle targets even though they have decades more experience than SpaceX.
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is scheduled to head for the ISS with two people on board on Wednesday. The head of NASA’s human spaceflight program resigned this past Monday. Everyone says the two weren’t related. I suspect that’s true, and that the resignation is Boeing related: either the still-unfolding disaster that is Boeing software development that happened on his watch, or all the extra money that was given to Boeing to meet the manned vehicle targets even though they have decades more experience than SpaceX.
However, a couple weeks later, I got a freaking letter signed by OrangeFart patting himself on the back for “giving” me the money.
When we got our letter, it was amusing to see that it was repeated on the reverse side, in Spanish.
However, a couple weeks later, I got a freaking letter signed by OrangeFart patting himself on the back for “giving” me the money.
When we got our letter, it was amusing to see that it was repeated on the reverse side, in Spanish.
For what it’s worth, also too (h/t Snarki), Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than earth.
Which is why the windstorm that initiated the plot in The Martian was baloney! (Otherwise, it was a book that might as well have been written just for me.)
For what it’s worth, also too (h/t Snarki), Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than earth.
Which is why the windstorm that initiated the plot in The Martian was baloney! (Otherwise, it was a book that might as well have been written just for me.)
When we got our letter, it was amusing to see that it was repeated on the reverse side, in Spanish.
ROTFLOL!
Deep State for the win!
When we got our letter, it was amusing to see that it was repeated on the reverse side, in Spanish.
ROTFLOL!
Deep State for the win!
Need a change of pace during your self segregation? Check this out.
https://24hoursoflemons.com/wtf-onlineracing/
I’m definitely not a petrolhead. (That would be my wife.) So my interest in auto racing is minimal. Let alone virtual auto racing. But I gotta say, the commentary on this is hysterical.
Need a change of pace during your self segregation? Check this out.
https://24hoursoflemons.com/wtf-onlineracing/
I’m definitely not a petrolhead. (That would be my wife.) So my interest in auto racing is minimal. Let alone virtual auto racing. But I gotta say, the commentary on this is hysterical.
I just don’t think the physics would work, however shallow the angle.
This isn’t a bullet going through butter; the energy generated by the initial impact would be enormous, and would slow down massively whatever body hit the surface (and almost certainly destroy it).
Also, even if I’m wrong, I think you have to account for surface curvature – it’s a pretty enormous canyon.
I just don’t think the physics would work, however shallow the angle.
This isn’t a bullet going through butter; the energy generated by the initial impact would be enormous, and would slow down massively whatever body hit the surface (and almost certainly destroy it).
Also, even if I’m wrong, I think you have to account for surface curvature – it’s a pretty enormous canyon.
Kentucky governor lynched in effigy outside his home, by armed men,
Who have their kids along to watch.
https://twitter.com/ladd_sarah/status/1264745614748930051
Kentucky governor lynched in effigy outside his home, by armed men,
Who have their kids along to watch.
https://twitter.com/ladd_sarah/status/1264745614748930051
Hey, it’s a sign of racial equality with the governor being white (and no obvious ‘race traitor’ chorus accompanying the event). But there is no way to please the lib-[insert extension to your liking]-s, as usual.
[/snark]
Hey, it’s a sign of racial equality with the governor being white (and no obvious ‘race traitor’ chorus accompanying the event). But there is no way to please the lib-[insert extension to your liking]-s, as usual.
[/snark]
Asteroids and comets generally are moving at “orbital velocities”, around 10km/s.
Hit something with a 100g bullet going 10km/s, the bullet vaporizes (or turns into 25% vapor 75% boiling liquid; something like that).
Hit something with 10,000tons of asteroid going 10km/s, you get the same type of result: there’s more kinetic energy in the projectile to match the larger mass of the projectile.
Mars had oceans and rivers a couple billion years ago, which is a much more likely source of “long straight valleys”.
But then they elected a narcissistic moron that thought it was more important to carve a mountain into a sculpture of his face than to maintain the planetary magnetic field generator, and here we are.
Asteroids and comets generally are moving at “orbital velocities”, around 10km/s.
Hit something with a 100g bullet going 10km/s, the bullet vaporizes (or turns into 25% vapor 75% boiling liquid; something like that).
Hit something with 10,000tons of asteroid going 10km/s, you get the same type of result: there’s more kinetic energy in the projectile to match the larger mass of the projectile.
Mars had oceans and rivers a couple billion years ago, which is a much more likely source of “long straight valleys”.
But then they elected a narcissistic moron that thought it was more important to carve a mountain into a sculpture of his face than to maintain the planetary magnetic field generator, and here we are.
WOTD: “chasmata”
WOTD: “chasmata”
Every Memorial Day I end up doing a bit of research as my meditation on the war dead. This year, for obvious reasons, I was looking into deaths by disease in WWI and found this interesting bit in a (sadly, not public) journal article:
Trench fever, like shell shock and related conditions, paradoxically saved lives as they made soldiers unfit for duty in the front line; it’s possible there is a direct link between them. We now know that B. quintana can cause endocarditis. ‘Disorderly action of the heart’ or ‘soldier’s heart’ was a shell-shock variant. First described in the
American Civil War as ‘Da Costa’s syndrome’, many thought that its cardiac symptoms were caused by anxiety. How many were due to B. quintana we will never know, but it is a reasonable guess that more than a few were.
It’s interesting to think that one of the elements of a shell-shock diagnosis (which may or may not be the same thing as WWII’s Combat Fatigue or Vietnam’s PTSD) might well have been brought on not by combat, but by flea feces. And also, that being sent off the line for treatment may well have saved more lives than it took.
But that’s Trench Fever, and not the horror story of the Influenza pandemic that followed.
Every Memorial Day I end up doing a bit of research as my meditation on the war dead. This year, for obvious reasons, I was looking into deaths by disease in WWI and found this interesting bit in a (sadly, not public) journal article:
Trench fever, like shell shock and related conditions, paradoxically saved lives as they made soldiers unfit for duty in the front line; it’s possible there is a direct link between them. We now know that B. quintana can cause endocarditis. ‘Disorderly action of the heart’ or ‘soldier’s heart’ was a shell-shock variant. First described in the
American Civil War as ‘Da Costa’s syndrome’, many thought that its cardiac symptoms were caused by anxiety. How many were due to B. quintana we will never know, but it is a reasonable guess that more than a few were.
It’s interesting to think that one of the elements of a shell-shock diagnosis (which may or may not be the same thing as WWII’s Combat Fatigue or Vietnam’s PTSD) might well have been brought on not by combat, but by flea feces. And also, that being sent off the line for treatment may well have saved more lives than it took.
But that’s Trench Fever, and not the horror story of the Influenza pandemic that followed.
being sent off the line for treatment may well have saved more lives than it took.
Well, it may have saved that particular soldier’s life. Whether it reduced the total combat deaths would seem to be a different deal.
being sent off the line for treatment may well have saved more lives than it took.
Well, it may have saved that particular soldier’s life. Whether it reduced the total combat deaths would seem to be a different deal.
Whether it reduced the total combat deaths would seem to be a different deal.
Yes, that would depend a lot on whether companies being under strength affected the overall strategy and frequency of big offensives. Best estimates put the number of British troops suffering from Trench Fever during the war at between 350,000 and 500,000 with no accurate figure for how many of those might have died of the disease.
Meanwhile, John Keegan reports in The Face of Battle that somewhere around 21,000 British troops likely died during the first half-hour of the first day of the Somme Offensive.
Whether it reduced the total combat deaths would seem to be a different deal.
Yes, that would depend a lot on whether companies being under strength affected the overall strategy and frequency of big offensives. Best estimates put the number of British troops suffering from Trench Fever during the war at between 350,000 and 500,000 with no accurate figure for how many of those might have died of the disease.
Meanwhile, John Keegan reports in The Face of Battle that somewhere around 21,000 British troops likely died during the first half-hour of the first day of the Somme Offensive.
20 million unemployed and the stock market goes up? how can that be?
here’s a clue.
20 million unemployed and the stock market goes up? how can that be?
here’s a clue.
Government efficiency note: I have never been signed up for direct deposit for income tax purposes. In early May as I was seeing posts from friends about their checks arriving, as well as people reporting suspicious folks rooting through people’s mailboxes, I decided to check my status on the stimulus site. My “no info available” or whatever status meant I could go and enter bank routing information to receive the direct deposit. Which hit my account in 10 days or less.
Government efficiency note: I have never been signed up for direct deposit for income tax purposes. In early May as I was seeing posts from friends about their checks arriving, as well as people reporting suspicious folks rooting through people’s mailboxes, I decided to check my status on the stimulus site. My “no info available” or whatever status meant I could go and enter bank routing information to receive the direct deposit. Which hit my account in 10 days or less.
I got a direct deposit on April 29th. Until a few days before the deposit, I was getting a “no info available” from the website.
I got a direct deposit on April 29th. Until a few days before the deposit, I was getting a “no info available” from the website.
Lest anyone start believing in American exceptionalism, we see that Canada has politicians to equal anything that the GOP can field.
Gotta love it. Turning covid-19 into a lever.
Lest anyone start believing in American exceptionalism, we see that Canada has politicians to equal anything that the GOP can field.
Gotta love it. Turning covid-19 into a lever.
Canada is the most eastern (western?) province of China…
Canada is the most eastern (western?) province of China…
Charles, what a beautifully crafted slur. One can only wonder what part of your overall set of delusions led to it.
Charles, what a beautifully crafted slur. One can only wonder what part of your overall set of delusions led to it.
CharlesWT’s comment fits quite well with the post topic. Of course, one never knows what kind of crazy you are going to get when you turn over these libertarian rocks….
CharlesWT’s comment fits quite well with the post topic. Of course, one never knows what kind of crazy you are going to get when you turn over these libertarian rocks….
I got mine. I have not looked at it yet–I left that to my husband. My plan is to dole it out to Democrats, Senate races, some House races, maybe a governor or tow.
I got mine. I have not looked at it yet–I left that to my husband. My plan is to dole it out to Democrats, Senate races, some House races, maybe a governor or tow.
Charles, what a beautifully crafted slur.
Where’s that sarcasm/satire font when you need it?
China, like other countries, tries to influence and nudge other countries to its advantage. But China has more money and motivation to do so than most countries. Canada is just one of a number of countries that are getting antsy about how much influence they perceive China is having on their foreign and domestic affairs.
Charles, what a beautifully crafted slur.
Where’s that sarcasm/satire font when you need it?
China, like other countries, tries to influence and nudge other countries to its advantage. But China has more money and motivation to do so than most countries. Canada is just one of a number of countries that are getting antsy about how much influence they perceive China is having on their foreign and domestic affairs.
Charles, see my comment on the other thread. Sarcasm is hard to spot reliably at the best of times.
Sort of like how the distinction between oarody and reality has gotten hard to spot of late in our politics.
Charles, see my comment on the other thread. Sarcasm is hard to spot reliably at the best of times.
Sort of like how the distinction between oarody and reality has gotten hard to spot of late in our politics.
Massive shift of topic via ProPublica (which remains one of the best quality current news sources):
https://features.propublica.org/diabetes-amputations/black-american-amputation-epidemic/
TWO MAPS EXPLAIN why Fakorede has stayed in the Mississippi Delta. One shows America’s amputations from vascular disease. The second shows the enslaved population before the Civil War; he saw it at a plantation museum and was stunned by how closely they tracked. On his phone, he pulls up the images, showing doctors, or history buffs, or anyone who will listen. “Look familiar?” he asks, toggling between the maps. He watches the realization set in that amputations are a form of racial oppression, dating back to slavery.
The US health care system’s cost-saving measures cost literal arms and legs.
Massive shift of topic via ProPublica (which remains one of the best quality current news sources):
https://features.propublica.org/diabetes-amputations/black-american-amputation-epidemic/
TWO MAPS EXPLAIN why Fakorede has stayed in the Mississippi Delta. One shows America’s amputations from vascular disease. The second shows the enslaved population before the Civil War; he saw it at a plantation museum and was stunned by how closely they tracked. On his phone, he pulls up the images, showing doctors, or history buffs, or anyone who will listen. “Look familiar?” he asks, toggling between the maps. He watches the realization set in that amputations are a form of racial oppression, dating back to slavery.
The US health care system’s cost-saving measures cost literal arms and legs.
Open thread: this week we lost jazz drummer Jimmy Cobb, the last living participant in Miles Davis 1959 recording “Kind Of Blue”.
The efflorescence of American jazz in the middle 20th C. was an intersection of musical brilliance and cultural moment that has few parallels. Not many of those guys left.
R.I.P. Jimmy Cobb.
Open thread: this week we lost jazz drummer Jimmy Cobb, the last living participant in Miles Davis 1959 recording “Kind Of Blue”.
The efflorescence of American jazz in the middle 20th C. was an intersection of musical brilliance and cultural moment that has few parallels. Not many of those guys left.
R.I.P. Jimmy Cobb.
I’ve seen articles this spring which suggest that Arizona, Georgia, or even Texas(!) might be in play this year. But this
https://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/23932-poll-donald-trump-leads-biden-by-just-3-points-in-utah
simply blew me away.
Biden is within 3 percentage point of Trump in Utah?!? Which hasn’t voted for a Democrat in over half a century (since 1964). The mind boggles. If that’s even close to accurate, we’re looking at a blue wave the likes of which we haven’t seen in ages.
I’ve seen articles this spring which suggest that Arizona, Georgia, or even Texas(!) might be in play this year. But this
https://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/23932-poll-donald-trump-leads-biden-by-just-3-points-in-utah
simply blew me away.
Biden is within 3 percentage point of Trump in Utah?!? Which hasn’t voted for a Democrat in over half a century (since 1964). The mind boggles. If that’s even close to accurate, we’re looking at a blue wave the likes of which we haven’t seen in ages.
and Graham in SC is tied with his challenger.
teehee.
and Graham in SC is tied with his challenger.
teehee.
*Wards off the Evil Eye!*
*Wards off the Evil Eye!*
Blimey.
Just watched our PM being questioned by the parliamentary liaison committee. Words fail (well, they did for him, too).
Blimey.
Just watched our PM being questioned by the parliamentary liaison committee. Words fail (well, they did for him, too).
Agreed, Nigel.
Agreed, Nigel.
@wj
@cleek
Are we to the betting stage yet? At this point I’d take Biden flipping AZ, MI, PA, and FL to get a comfortable win. In the Senate, AZ, CO, ME, MT, and AL all flip leaving a 50-50 tie. The “But I just can’t vote for a Democrat” voters save the Republicans in a lot of places.
@wj
@cleek
Are we to the betting stage yet? At this point I’d take Biden flipping AZ, MI, PA, and FL to get a comfortable win. In the Senate, AZ, CO, ME, MT, and AL all flip leaving a 50-50 tie. The “But I just can’t vote for a Democrat” voters save the Republicans in a lot of places.
@Michael Cain
I’d support all those. But for the Senate I’d add NC, and maybe Georgia — mostly because I see Georgia getting a big resurgence of covid-19 cases thanks to their governor’s enthusiasm for reopening fast. I wouldn’t be that surprised if the GOP loses Iowa as well.
But my choice for a big financial win would be this — because I think I could get odds. I think McConnell manages to lose in Kentucky. He’s making such a point of refusing bailout funds for states, cities, and counties. And that’s going to hit a lot of folks in Kentucky.
He’s repeatedly managed to overcome being pretty unpopular by smothering opponents in heaps of out-of-state money during the general election campaign. But with people all around you losing jobs because of your Senator. I think a lot of folks aren’t going to take another slug of the koolaid this time around.
@Michael Cain
I’d support all those. But for the Senate I’d add NC, and maybe Georgia — mostly because I see Georgia getting a big resurgence of covid-19 cases thanks to their governor’s enthusiasm for reopening fast. I wouldn’t be that surprised if the GOP loses Iowa as well.
But my choice for a big financial win would be this — because I think I could get odds. I think McConnell manages to lose in Kentucky. He’s making such a point of refusing bailout funds for states, cities, and counties. And that’s going to hit a lot of folks in Kentucky.
He’s repeatedly managed to overcome being pretty unpopular by smothering opponents in heaps of out-of-state money during the general election campaign. But with people all around you losing jobs because of your Senator. I think a lot of folks aren’t going to take another slug of the koolaid this time around.
The 2016 blue wave all over again.
This morning the discussion by the hedge fund guys on tv was that by September the economy recovers, Trump takes credit, wins, extends gop Senate majority and retakes house.
Swear to god. It was like listening to a different country being discussed.
The 2016 blue wave all over again.
This morning the discussion by the hedge fund guys on tv was that by September the economy recovers, Trump takes credit, wins, extends gop Senate majority and retakes house.
Swear to god. It was like listening to a different country being discussed.
if COVID disappears by October, the hedge fund guys will turn out right.
COVID is not going to disappear by October.
if COVID disappears by October, the hedge fund guys will turn out right.
COVID is not going to disappear by October.
Meanwhile, FWIW, BBC Springwatch provides balm for the soul.
Meanwhile, FWIW, BBC Springwatch provides balm for the soul.
It was like listening to a different country being discussed.
It is a different country being discussed.
It was like listening to a different country being discussed.
It is a different country being discussed.
by September the economy recovers
The only trouble with the theory that this was a different country being discussed is that there are NO countries where the economy is likely to be recovered by September. Some, perhaps, which the economy is starting to recover. But none where it is anywhere near back to where it was at the beginning of the year.
More likely, it was an entirely different take on what “the economy” means. One which bears no resemblance to anything that the vast majority of the population interacts with.
by September the economy recovers
The only trouble with the theory that this was a different country being discussed is that there are NO countries where the economy is likely to be recovered by September. Some, perhaps, which the economy is starting to recover. But none where it is anywhere near back to where it was at the beginning of the year.
More likely, it was an entirely different take on what “the economy” means. One which bears no resemblance to anything that the vast majority of the population interacts with.
Drat! The SpaceX launch just got postponed due to bad weather.
Drat! The SpaceX launch just got postponed due to bad weather.
Hedge fund guys are the televangelists of the bull market. And while the markets may rally some in the next few months, that’s not going to be much of a balm for people who live on a paycheck.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-expect-a-quick-recovery-our-survey-of-economists-says-it-will-likely-take-years/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americas-unemployment-numbers-are-stabilizing-but-thats-not-a-good-thing/
Hooray for the Hedge Bros, anyway.
But it will take some work to convince everyone else that everything is getting better. Far more likely is that we still have massive unemployment and the GOP tries to shift blame onto a scapegoat again.
Hedge fund guys are the televangelists of the bull market. And while the markets may rally some in the next few months, that’s not going to be much of a balm for people who live on a paycheck.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-expect-a-quick-recovery-our-survey-of-economists-says-it-will-likely-take-years/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americas-unemployment-numbers-are-stabilizing-but-thats-not-a-good-thing/
Hooray for the Hedge Bros, anyway.
But it will take some work to convince everyone else that everything is getting better. Far more likely is that we still have massive unemployment and the GOP tries to shift blame onto a scapegoat again.
It’s funny reading the economists view and the Fortune 1000 CEO view and the hedge fund CEO. They do talk about different economies.
We can have massive unemployment and 20 million people could have returned to work.
Politics,like the market, is all about better or worse than expected.
It’s funny reading the economists view and the Fortune 1000 CEO view and the hedge fund CEO. They do talk about different economies.
We can have massive unemployment and 20 million people could have returned to work.
Politics,like the market, is all about better or worse than expected.
Are we to the betting stage yet?
Good time to go for it if you’re confident. Betting markets still have Trump as a slight favorite.
Are we to the betting stage yet?
Good time to go for it if you’re confident. Betting markets still have Trump as a slight favorite.
Trump has been ranting about fraud and mail voting. (Even though he, personally, has been voting by mail for years.) It seemed a bit excessive, even for him. But suddenly, it makes sense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/us/Voting-republicans-trump.html
If you’re spending big bucks to hire 50,000 poll watchers, of course you’d be seriously upset to discover that there might be no polls for them to watch. All that money . . . utterly wasted. Sad.
Trump has been ranting about fraud and mail voting. (Even though he, personally, has been voting by mail for years.) It seemed a bit excessive, even for him. But suddenly, it makes sense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/us/Voting-republicans-trump.html
If you’re spending big bucks to hire 50,000 poll watchers, of course you’d be seriously upset to discover that there might be no polls for them to watch. All that money . . . utterly wasted. Sad.
Does anyone think there is an increased possibility of voting fraud if the state simply mails out a ballot to every registered voters address?
Right now for me to get a ballot I have to request it, go through stuff to verify my identity. Then I get a mail in ballot.
Continually comparing how I have gotten a ballot with millions of ballots being sent to the last known address of every registered voter is ridiculous.
It takes literally no imagination to begin to count the ways that could go wrong.
Does anyone think there is an increased possibility of voting fraud if the state simply mails out a ballot to every registered voters address?
Right now for me to get a ballot I have to request it, go through stuff to verify my identity. Then I get a mail in ballot.
Continually comparing how I have gotten a ballot with millions of ballots being sent to the last known address of every registered voter is ridiculous.
It takes literally no imagination to begin to count the ways that could go wrong.
Mail-in ballot FAQ with security features:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
Works fine in the states that already do it, and voter turnout is higher.
And noted liberal stronghold Utah does it, so it must be a Democratic plot.
Mail-in ballot FAQ with security features:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
Works fine in the states that already do it, and voter turnout is higher.
And noted liberal stronghold Utah does it, so it must be a Democratic plot.
My bet is that Moss Cow Mitch will get some big pork projects steered into Kentucky right on time for the election (his wife will take care of that again).
I also guess that the elections will be quite close in many places and the GOP will try to get a dozen Bush v. Gore decisions (and be successful more often than not).
Imo the senate will stay red but barely (and the turtle still running it*).
Joe v. Jabbabonk will be tight too, so my guess is it will be either 2016 redux (and improved**) or a landslide for Biden with razor sharp edges in several states.
In any case, the official election results will NOT be known for many days after election day and the courts will have to work overtime.
* in that case I’d recommend he wear a (steel) gorget at all times and some kind of nose protection for there will be constant calls to strangle him or at least to punch him in the face hard and often.
**i.e. an all time record for winning the EC while losing the popular vote
My bet is that Moss Cow Mitch will get some big pork projects steered into Kentucky right on time for the election (his wife will take care of that again).
I also guess that the elections will be quite close in many places and the GOP will try to get a dozen Bush v. Gore decisions (and be successful more often than not).
Imo the senate will stay red but barely (and the turtle still running it*).
Joe v. Jabbabonk will be tight too, so my guess is it will be either 2016 redux (and improved**) or a landslide for Biden with razor sharp edges in several states.
In any case, the official election results will NOT be known for many days after election day and the courts will have to work overtime.
* in that case I’d recommend he wear a (steel) gorget at all times and some kind of nose protection for there will be constant calls to strangle him or at least to punch him in the face hard and often.
**i.e. an all time record for winning the EC while losing the popular vote
Does anyone think there is an increased possibility of voting fraud if the state simply mails out a ballot to every registered voters address?
Nope. But then, I suffer from having worked the polls in several elections. So I’ve seen how the process actually works.
As it happens, there is (slightly) less possibility for fraud. Here’s why.
So actually, there’s far less chance for a problem. Either deliberate or just someone missing voting because they show up at the wrong polling place (we get one or two every election) when it’s too late in the day to get to the right location.
Does anyone think there is an increased possibility of voting fraud if the state simply mails out a ballot to every registered voters address?
Nope. But then, I suffer from having worked the polls in several elections. So I’ve seen how the process actually works.
As it happens, there is (slightly) less possibility for fraud. Here’s why.
So actually, there’s far less chance for a problem. Either deliberate or just someone missing voting because they show up at the wrong polling place (we get one or two every election) when it’s too late in the day to get to the right location.
Right now for me to get a ballot I have to request it, go through stuff to verify my identity. Then I get a mail in ballot.
If I’m not mistaken, you’re in MA. So am I.
“Go through stuff to verify my identity” is (a) sign a form that was sent to my last known address as a registered voter and (b) mail it in.
The difference between that and (a) sign a ballot that was sent to my last known address as a registered voter and (b) mail it in seems… small.
Right now for me to get a ballot I have to request it, go through stuff to verify my identity. Then I get a mail in ballot.
If I’m not mistaken, you’re in MA. So am I.
“Go through stuff to verify my identity” is (a) sign a form that was sent to my last known address as a registered voter and (b) mail it in.
The difference between that and (a) sign a ballot that was sent to my last known address as a registered voter and (b) mail it in seems… small.
If you assume that someone wants to get someone elected and is willing to use whatever means they can, you might worry about this. However, if it is someone or a small group of people, they would have to find a way to get a large enough a volume of ballots, fill them out and then send them in. There would be enough fingerprints, even without identified envelopes and such, that they could be caught pretty easily.
If you assume that someone wants to get someone elected and is willing to use whatever means they can, you might worry about this. However, if it is someone or a small group of people, they would have to find a way to get a large enough a volume of ballots, fill them out and then send them in. There would be enough fingerprints, even without identified envelopes and such, that they could be caught pretty easily.
my wife reminds me that the thing they sent us was for local elections.
To get an absentee ballot for national elections in MA, you have to download a form from here, fill it out, and mail it in. Or, you can do it online.
Maybe Marty has a permanent residence someplace other than MA and the bar is higher there.
But in MA that’s the burden of proof. Fill out a form, sign it (perhaps electronically) under penalty of perjury, mail it in.
I suppose I could pick a bunch of names out of the phone book and have their ballots mailed to me and vote fraudulently in their name. But somehow that doesn’t actually ever seem to happen.
my wife reminds me that the thing they sent us was for local elections.
To get an absentee ballot for national elections in MA, you have to download a form from here, fill it out, and mail it in. Or, you can do it online.
Maybe Marty has a permanent residence someplace other than MA and the bar is higher there.
But in MA that’s the burden of proof. Fill out a form, sign it (perhaps electronically) under penalty of perjury, mail it in.
I suppose I could pick a bunch of names out of the phone book and have their ballots mailed to me and vote fraudulently in their name. But somehow that doesn’t actually ever seem to happen.
As I said earlier, the main source of fraud connected with vote-by-mail is political operatives letting ballots disappear, so they do not reach their destination. Just the logicel next step after doing the same to applications. And I would be surprised, if no one has yet tried to de-register voters by mail.
Btw, near 100% of such shenanigans caught were committed by GOP operatives.
As I said earlier, the main source of fraud connected with vote-by-mail is political operatives letting ballots disappear, so they do not reach their destination. Just the logicel next step after doing the same to applications. And I would be surprised, if no one has yet tried to de-register voters by mail.
Btw, near 100% of such shenanigans caught were committed by GOP operatives.
The more people who vote, the worse the (R)’s odds are. So, they don’t want people to vote, and will try to prevent people from voting in any way they can get away with.
That is what the whole “OMG voting by mail!!” thing is about.
The more people who vote, the worse the (R)’s odds are. So, they don’t want people to vote, and will try to prevent people from voting in any way they can get away with.
That is what the whole “OMG voting by mail!!” thing is about.
Meanwhile, turnabout is fair play, I suppose.
This is gonna be one weird election, in one very weird year.
Meanwhile, turnabout is fair play, I suppose.
This is gonna be one weird election, in one very weird year.
they would have to find a way to get a large enough a volume of ballots, fill them out and then send them in
you would hire workers to falsify absentee ballot request forms, collect absentee ballots and falsify witness certifications. then you would peek into unsealed ballots and arrange for the troublesome ones to get lost, or you would fill in votes for races that the actual voter left blank.
they would have to find a way to get a large enough a volume of ballots, fill them out and then send them in
you would hire workers to falsify absentee ballot request forms, collect absentee ballots and falsify witness certifications. then you would peek into unsealed ballots and arrange for the troublesome ones to get lost, or you would fill in votes for races that the actual voter left blank.
You dont have to file for absentee ballots, just find all the people who have never voted and buy their physical ballot.
How many signatures do we think are going to be actually compared out of 19.9 M registered voters sending in a ballot?
None of these things are like the other.
You dont have to file for absentee ballots, just find all the people who have never voted and buy their physical ballot.
How many signatures do we think are going to be actually compared out of 19.9 M registered voters sending in a ballot?
None of these things are like the other.
…just find all the people who have never voted and buy their physical ballot.
Just! You can put that in front of all sorts of neat things. Just put your elbow in your ear! See?
Meanwhile, there’s something called empiricism. When available, it’s better than theory. Vote-by-mail is not some untested thing.
…just find all the people who have never voted and buy their physical ballot.
Just! You can put that in front of all sorts of neat things. Just put your elbow in your ear! See?
Meanwhile, there’s something called empiricism. When available, it’s better than theory. Vote-by-mail is not some untested thing.
Does anyone think there is an increased possibility of voting fraud if the state simply mails out a ballot to every registered voters address?
With a process as good as most current absentee ballot systems? Probably not. Ask the people in North Carolina who tried recently.
With no designed process in place? Sure. Although I would be willing to bet that the situation will mostly be exploited by crooked officials, not voters. Whether the old-school Chicago machine (“Vote early, vote often”) or the (surprisingly large number of) cases from the rural South of stealing the election for county sheriff, non-trivial fraud almost always requires cooperation from crooked officials.
Does anyone think there is an increased possibility of voting fraud if the state simply mails out a ballot to every registered voters address?
With a process as good as most current absentee ballot systems? Probably not. Ask the people in North Carolina who tried recently.
With no designed process in place? Sure. Although I would be willing to bet that the situation will mostly be exploited by crooked officials, not voters. Whether the old-school Chicago machine (“Vote early, vote often”) or the (surprisingly large number of) cases from the rural South of stealing the election for county sheriff, non-trivial fraud almost always requires cooperation from crooked officials.
How many signatures do we think are going to be actually compared out of 19.9 M registered voters sending in a ballot?
In my state where all registered voters receive a ballot by mail, all signatures are checked. The first pass is by a machine that’s both pickier and statistically more accurate than humans.
In Arizona and California, where they use their absentee ballot systems to handle 80% and 70% of all ballots cast respectively, all signatures are checked. By hand, which is why Arizona and California results drag out for days/weeks.
How many signatures do we think are going to be actually compared out of 19.9 M registered voters sending in a ballot?
In my state where all registered voters receive a ballot by mail, all signatures are checked. The first pass is by a machine that’s both pickier and statistically more accurate than humans.
In Arizona and California, where they use their absentee ballot systems to handle 80% and 70% of all ballots cast respectively, all signatures are checked. By hand, which is why Arizona and California results drag out for days/weeks.
You dont have to file for absentee ballots, just find all the people who have never voted and buy their physical ballot.
Oh, hello, wow, that box if sure full of letters. And you say you want to mail 5,000 letters all to the same place? Nothing suspicious about that, no siree bob…
You dont have to file for absentee ballots, just find all the people who have never voted and buy their physical ballot.
Oh, hello, wow, that box if sure full of letters. And you say you want to mail 5,000 letters all to the same place? Nothing suspicious about that, no siree bob…
1. find all the people who have never voted
2. pay them to (a) request a mail-in ballot and (b) give that to you
3. fill out and mail in all of those ballots
4. in sufficient numbers to sway an election
I think somewhere around (2), word would get out that something was up.
And that’s my last bite at this particular hook for today.
1. find all the people who have never voted
2. pay them to (a) request a mail-in ballot and (b) give that to you
3. fill out and mail in all of those ballots
4. in sufficient numbers to sway an election
I think somewhere around (2), word would get out that something was up.
And that’s my last bite at this particular hook for today.
I think you missed the Jedi mind-trick where you convince everyone not to tell on you, russell. Every single one…
I think you missed the Jedi mind-trick where you convince everyone not to tell on you, russell. Every single one…
And you say you want to mail 5,000 letters all to the same place?
which is why the people in NC were careful to mail small bunches of ballots from post offices or post boxes near the voters’ houses.
And you say you want to mail 5,000 letters all to the same place?
which is why the people in NC were careful to mail small bunches of ballots from post offices or post boxes near the voters’ houses.
How many signatures do we think are going to be actually compared out of 19.9 M registered voters sending in a ballot?
What Michael Cain said: Here in California, all mail ballot signatures are checked.
But I suppose that some other states, having been systematically gutting their state government in order to cut taxes, might find checking signatures a challenge.
How many signatures do we think are going to be actually compared out of 19.9 M registered voters sending in a ballot?
What Michael Cain said: Here in California, all mail ballot signatures are checked.
But I suppose that some other states, having been systematically gutting their state government in order to cut taxes, might find checking signatures a challenge.
First, wj you are not qualified to validate my signature. My bet is that most people trying to validate 150 million votes would not be.
Second, yes hsh. There is empirical evidence that even at small scale in NC and AZ the likelihood is that someone will tamper with the votes.
First, wj you are not qualified to validate my signature. My bet is that most people trying to validate 150 million votes would not be.
Second, yes hsh. There is empirical evidence that even at small scale in NC and AZ the likelihood is that someone will tamper with the votes.
You can have my mail-in ballot if you’ll pay off my mortgage.
I mean, I love my country, but everybody has a price…. 🙂
And yes, that’s my final offer.
You can have my mail-in ballot if you’ll pay off my mortgage.
I mean, I love my country, but everybody has a price…. 🙂
And yes, that’s my final offer.
In NJ, they check your signature against the one on file when you vote in person. What’s the difference if it’s a mailed-in ballot with a signature versus a person standing in front of them writing the signature in terms of processing a given number of ballots?
In NJ, they check your signature against the one on file when you vote in person. What’s the difference if it’s a mailed-in ballot with a signature versus a person standing in front of them writing the signature in terms of processing a given number of ballots?
There is empirical evidence that even at small scale in NC and AZ the likelihood is that someone will tamper with the votes.
And get away with it? Not so much. It’s a stupid thing to do, because it’s too easy to get caught, even at a small scale. The smaller the scale, the easier it should be. So you can’t say, “even at small scale” as though it’s an argument for it happening successfully on a larger scale.
There is empirical evidence that even at small scale in NC and AZ the likelihood is that someone will tamper with the votes.
And get away with it? Not so much. It’s a stupid thing to do, because it’s too easy to get caught, even at a small scale. The smaller the scale, the easier it should be. So you can’t say, “even at small scale” as though it’s an argument for it happening successfully on a larger scale.
First, wj you are not qualified to validate my signature. My bet is that most people trying to validate 150 million votes would not be.
But it’s no different than validating signatures at the polling place. Why is it suddenly a problem because we’re talking about voting-by-mail? The perfect only seems to be the enemy of the good on a selective basis here.
First, wj you are not qualified to validate my signature. My bet is that most people trying to validate 150 million votes would not be.
But it’s no different than validating signatures at the polling place. Why is it suddenly a problem because we’re talking about voting-by-mail? The perfect only seems to be the enemy of the good on a selective basis here.
First, wj you are not qualified to validate my signature. My bet is that most people trying to validate 150 million votes would not be.
What would make me (or anybody else) qualified? In your expert opinion, of course. How do you know that anybody who shows up at the polls is who he says he is? Seriously, what is your basis for comparison?
First, wj you are not qualified to validate my signature. My bet is that most people trying to validate 150 million votes would not be.
What would make me (or anybody else) qualified? In your expert opinion, of course. How do you know that anybody who shows up at the polls is who he says he is? Seriously, what is your basis for comparison?
Here’s the process.
Show up at the polls.
Fill out your ballot.
Show it to the poll watchers.
If you voted for the R, you’re who you say you are.
If not, not. Go to the other line and try to prove you’re who you say you are to certain people’s satisfaction.
Designers of the system could save time and trouble by having two lines right from the start, one for white people and one for everyone else.
If you’re white, see above.
If you’re not, you get thrown into the plot of Kafka’s The Castle, never to see daylight again.
But wait, I forgot about the part where there aren’t enough polling places, and they’re not open long enough for working people.
Oh well, no system is perfect.
Here’s the process.
Show up at the polls.
Fill out your ballot.
Show it to the poll watchers.
If you voted for the R, you’re who you say you are.
If not, not. Go to the other line and try to prove you’re who you say you are to certain people’s satisfaction.
Designers of the system could save time and trouble by having two lines right from the start, one for white people and one for everyone else.
If you’re white, see above.
If you’re not, you get thrown into the plot of Kafka’s The Castle, never to see daylight again.
But wait, I forgot about the part where there aren’t enough polling places, and they’re not open long enough for working people.
Oh well, no system is perfect.
no system is perfect
some systems are much less perfect than others.
no system is perfect
some systems are much less perfect than others.
In my state we’ve had vote-by-mail for a long time. Every registered voter is mailed a ballot weeks before the election. All the signatures get checked as the ballots come in so it’s not that large of a burden. Ballots are held until counting starts at the ballot return deadline. Our ballots must be returned by the traditional 8:00 pm on election day and the ballots are machine-counted. That makes it fast and ensures that election results don’t drag out. We have copious ballot drop off locations at public libraries and quite a few drive-through outdoor ones so you don’t have to mail your ballot and you can vote at the last minute if you want to. The county also has a program that allows you to monitor the status of your ballot. You can sign up to get a text message when they receive your ballot and another one when your signature has been validated and your ballot has been accepted for counting.
Vote-by-mail works just fine. You can spin potential fraud stories with every kind of voting. That doesn’t make them real. Voter fraud is hard because, for one thing, to pull it off on a scale that will affect an election requires too many people to know that it’s happening.
In my state we’ve had vote-by-mail for a long time. Every registered voter is mailed a ballot weeks before the election. All the signatures get checked as the ballots come in so it’s not that large of a burden. Ballots are held until counting starts at the ballot return deadline. Our ballots must be returned by the traditional 8:00 pm on election day and the ballots are machine-counted. That makes it fast and ensures that election results don’t drag out. We have copious ballot drop off locations at public libraries and quite a few drive-through outdoor ones so you don’t have to mail your ballot and you can vote at the last minute if you want to. The county also has a program that allows you to monitor the status of your ballot. You can sign up to get a text message when they receive your ballot and another one when your signature has been validated and your ballot has been accepted for counting.
Vote-by-mail works just fine. You can spin potential fraud stories with every kind of voting. That doesn’t make them real. Voter fraud is hard because, for one thing, to pull it off on a scale that will affect an election requires too many people to know that it’s happening.
You can spin potential fraud stories with every kind of voting. That doesn’t make them real
it was very real in NC this past election. people are in jail because of it. there was a second election called because of it.
You can spin potential fraud stories with every kind of voting. That doesn’t make them real
it was very real in NC this past election. people are in jail because of it. there was a second election called because of it.
There is a push by some progressives to require using postmarks instead of ballot arrival deadlines in all vote-by-mail elections. I think that’s a mistake. It drags out election results too much. I do think that it’s critical to give people convenient and secure physical drop-off locations in addition to the mail option. That solves problems in areas where postal service is iffy, like some Native American reservations, and it allows people to wait until the last minute to vote, which is important to some people.
There is a push by some progressives to require using postmarks instead of ballot arrival deadlines in all vote-by-mail elections. I think that’s a mistake. It drags out election results too much. I do think that it’s critical to give people convenient and secure physical drop-off locations in addition to the mail option. That solves problems in areas where postal service is iffy, like some Native American reservations, and it allows people to wait until the last minute to vote, which is important to some people.
Is it worth noting that the kind of voter fraud perpetrated in North Carolina did not follow any of the scenarios which have been exercising Republican legislators? (Not to mention that it didn’t work either. Or, more precisely, it was found out before the intended beneficiary could take office.)
Is it worth noting that the kind of voter fraud perpetrated in North Carolina did not follow any of the scenarios which have been exercising Republican legislators? (Not to mention that it didn’t work either. Or, more precisely, it was found out before the intended beneficiary could take office.)
wj, yes some got caught,that usually means some didnt.
And, to answer another of your questions, no one ever checked my signature at the polling place in MA. I showed up, told them my address, typically surrounded by a bunch of people I knew, they asked me to validate my name, they marked me off as having gotten a ballot. So I couldnt get another. I voted.
Showing up and declaring you are someone else is a damn sight harder to scam in volume than vote by mail.
wj, yes some got caught,that usually means some didnt.
And, to answer another of your questions, no one ever checked my signature at the polling place in MA. I showed up, told them my address, typically surrounded by a bunch of people I knew, they asked me to validate my name, they marked me off as having gotten a ballot. So I couldnt get another. I voted.
Showing up and declaring you are someone else is a damn sight harder to scam in volume than vote by mail.
A piece about a very weird man ( Bannon) and his underlying bizarre ideology
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/traditionalism-steve-bannon-benjamin-teitelbaum/
No comment from me, but people might find it interesting.
A piece about a very weird man ( Bannon) and his underlying bizarre ideology
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/traditionalism-steve-bannon-benjamin-teitelbaum/
No comment from me, but people might find it interesting.
You could solve 90% of actually-seen election fraud problems by jailing all Republicans, y’know.
Maybe we should try that.
You could solve 90% of actually-seen election fraud problems by jailing all Republicans, y’know.
Maybe we should try that.
I showed up, told them my address, typically surrounded by a bunch of people I knew
It sounds like you have rather smaller precincts than I am accustomed to. I’m trying to remember if I have ever, in half a century of voting in every single election, seen someone I knew at the polls. Not one is coming to mind.
Nor can I recall, in the half dozen elections that I’ve worked, more than a half dozen voters who appeared to know another voter there (family membets arriving together excluded).
I showed up, told them my address, typically surrounded by a bunch of people I knew
It sounds like you have rather smaller precincts than I am accustomed to. I’m trying to remember if I have ever, in half a century of voting in every single election, seen someone I knew at the polls. Not one is coming to mind.
Nor can I recall, in the half dozen elections that I’ve worked, more than a half dozen voters who appeared to know another voter there (family membets arriving together excluded).
Showing up and declaring you are someone else is a damn sight harder to scam in volume than vote by mail.
But you have to demonstrate that it’s happening to a significant degree in places where voting by mail is the norm, not simply opine in theory how fraught it is. Then you have to demonstrate that the level of fraud in vote-by-mail outweighs the drawbacks of in-person voting, particularly under the current health circumstances, but also in light of the kind of voter suppression that in-person voting better facilitates.
Vote-by-mail is and has been happening on a large scale for years. Where’s the beef?
Showing up and declaring you are someone else is a damn sight harder to scam in volume than vote by mail.
But you have to demonstrate that it’s happening to a significant degree in places where voting by mail is the norm, not simply opine in theory how fraught it is. Then you have to demonstrate that the level of fraud in vote-by-mail outweighs the drawbacks of in-person voting, particularly under the current health circumstances, but also in light of the kind of voter suppression that in-person voting better facilitates.
Vote-by-mail is and has been happening on a large scale for years. Where’s the beef?
Please mentally italicize that first sentence.
Please mentally italicize that first sentence.
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” —Emma Goldman
🙂
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” —Emma Goldman
🙂
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail.
and no, i don’t know of a better way to work around COVID than VBM. but i still don’t like it.
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail.
and no, i don’t know of a better way to work around COVID than VBM. but i still don’t like it.
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail
Considering how many places manage to use vote-by-mail without having huge problems, it might be more useful to look at NC’s VBM process. See what could be tweaked to address that particular problem which led to what happened there.
Otherwise you are in the position of the guy who says “I got food poisoning. So I’m never going to eat again.” Yeah, that would address the food poisoning issue. But is it really the best solution?
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail
Considering how many places manage to use vote-by-mail without having huge problems, it might be more useful to look at NC’s VBM process. See what could be tweaked to address that particular problem which led to what happened there.
Otherwise you are in the position of the guy who says “I got food poisoning. So I’m never going to eat again.” Yeah, that would address the food poisoning issue. But is it really the best solution?
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail.
I’d certainly support strong efforts to ensure as much as possible that what happened in NC doesn’t happen again. I know the people involved have been arrested and charged. Any updates on convictions or sentences?
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail.
I’d certainly support strong efforts to ensure as much as possible that what happened in NC doesn’t happen again. I know the people involved have been arrested and charged. Any updates on convictions or sentences?
See what could be tweaked to address that particular problem which led to what happened there.
the thing is, there are already laws in place which should have prevented it. but, you know how criminals are about laws…
the whole thing relied on the ignorance of voters. they were signed-up for absentee ballots that the schemers suspected weren’t going to be filled out (based on past voting records); ballots were collected by the schemers illegally (voters should have known not to give their ballots to strangers); ballots were tampered with (obv illegal); witness signatures were forged (obv illegal).
if voters don’t know their own role in a vote by mail process, the process is going to be abused by people who don’t care about the laws.
See what could be tweaked to address that particular problem which led to what happened there.
the thing is, there are already laws in place which should have prevented it. but, you know how criminals are about laws…
the whole thing relied on the ignorance of voters. they were signed-up for absentee ballots that the schemers suspected weren’t going to be filled out (based on past voting records); ballots were collected by the schemers illegally (voters should have known not to give their ballots to strangers); ballots were tampered with (obv illegal); witness signatures were forged (obv illegal).
if voters don’t know their own role in a vote by mail process, the process is going to be abused by people who don’t care about the laws.
No, hsh. The “you have to prove it will fail” argument is a red herring. All I have to do to question its potential success is to point out reasonable risks, which have already been demonstrated. I dont have to “prove” people would take advantage of those vulnerabilities.
I dont have to wait until someone robs my house to install a lock.
No, hsh. The “you have to prove it will fail” argument is a red herring. All I have to do to question its potential success is to point out reasonable risks, which have already been demonstrated. I dont have to “prove” people would take advantage of those vulnerabilities.
I dont have to wait until someone robs my house to install a lock.
So install a lock.
The (R)’s tried to hack a Congressional election in NC. They got caught. Because it was impossible to do what they tried to do – exactly what you suggest, collect people’s mail in ballots and manipulate them – without calling attention to themselves.
(R)’s don’t want people to vote by mail because it will increase voter turnout, which lowers their odds.
So install a lock.
The (R)’s tried to hack a Congressional election in NC. They got caught. Because it was impossible to do what they tried to do – exactly what you suggest, collect people’s mail in ballots and manipulate them – without calling attention to themselves.
(R)’s don’t want people to vote by mail because it will increase voter turnout, which lowers their odds.
More pointedly – the GOP doesn’t want people to be able to vote by mail in places where they know they are only winning because they are already suppressing votes by other means.
Turnout has no risks for the GOP in Utah, so no one worries about it.
More pointedly – the GOP doesn’t want people to be able to vote by mail in places where they know they are only winning because they are already suppressing votes by other means.
Turnout has no risks for the GOP in Utah, so no one worries about it.
It sounds like you have rather smaller precincts than I am accustomed to. I’m trying to remember if I have ever, in half a century of voting in every single election, seen someone I knew at the polls.
Typical for a western state. During the years before Colorado got a permanent absentee ballot list, I don’t remember two consecutive elections where the precinct boundaries were the same, or the voting place in the same location. I have argued before that vote-by-mail seems much more attractive to people living in a place growing at some fantastic rate. On the near order of 70% of votes cast in the 13-state West in 2018 were ballots delivered by mail. This year it will likely reach 75%, maybe 80% if NV decides to go that route.
It sounds like you have rather smaller precincts than I am accustomed to. I’m trying to remember if I have ever, in half a century of voting in every single election, seen someone I knew at the polls.
Typical for a western state. During the years before Colorado got a permanent absentee ballot list, I don’t remember two consecutive elections where the precinct boundaries were the same, or the voting place in the same location. I have argued before that vote-by-mail seems much more attractive to people living in a place growing at some fantastic rate. On the near order of 70% of votes cast in the 13-state West in 2018 were ballots delivered by mail. This year it will likely reach 75%, maybe 80% if NV decides to go that route.
It sounds like you have rather smaller precincts than I am accustomed to.
Typical for a western state.
I live in a town that’s 4 square miles, some of which is water, and 20,000 people.
We have 6 voting precints.
Plus, in New England, it’s not uncommon for folks to stay wherever they grew up, or at least pretty nearby. Not me personally, I’m from away, even though I’ve been here almost 40 years now.
Townies are a thing. If you grew up here, went to school here or had kids that went to school here, work for the town or have any kind of business in the town, it’s highly likely that you’ll bump into some folks you know at the polling place.
It sounds like you have rather smaller precincts than I am accustomed to.
Typical for a western state.
I live in a town that’s 4 square miles, some of which is water, and 20,000 people.
We have 6 voting precints.
Plus, in New England, it’s not uncommon for folks to stay wherever they grew up, or at least pretty nearby. Not me personally, I’m from away, even though I’ve been here almost 40 years now.
Townies are a thing. If you grew up here, went to school here or had kids that went to school here, work for the town or have any kind of business in the town, it’s highly likely that you’ll bump into some folks you know at the polling place.
I live in a “town” (and precinct, they are identical) of about 2500. Even counting the time when I was brand spanking new here, I have never gone to the polls without seeing people I know.
When this first came up in the thread, I was thinking it was mostly a rural vs urban thing. So Michael’s observation about the West, and places where the population is growing rapidly, sheds additional light.
I live in a “town” (and precinct, they are identical) of about 2500. Even counting the time when I was brand spanking new here, I have never gone to the polls without seeing people I know.
When this first came up in the thread, I was thinking it was mostly a rural vs urban thing. So Michael’s observation about the West, and places where the population is growing rapidly, sheds additional light.
I put “town” in quotes because although it’s legally a town (not a city, a plantation, a township, etc.), most people would probably laugh at that label. It’s a blinker light, a few shops and public buildings, and a lot of old/former farmland.
I put “town” in quotes because although it’s legally a town (not a city, a plantation, a township, etc.), most people would probably laugh at that label. It’s a blinker light, a few shops and public buildings, and a lot of old/former farmland.
From a different angle, I grew up in a town of about 24,000, where an awful lot of people knew an awful lot of people. Italian-Americans are all related to each other to begin with (j/k, but they do track relationships as avidly as hobbits), but people also knew each other because, as in russell’s description of New England, they had grown up in the same neighborhoods, gone to the same (one of two or three) high schools, etc.
A bunch of my relatives ended up in Florida. One of the Orlando ones said, when I was visiting many years ago, “It’s weird here. No one is from here.”
Another bunch live in a town that had about 3500 people when my family visited in 1963. Now it has 65000+.
And we won’t get into the bitching I had to listen to when they ran out of English ballots one year. 😉
From a different angle, I grew up in a town of about 24,000, where an awful lot of people knew an awful lot of people. Italian-Americans are all related to each other to begin with (j/k, but they do track relationships as avidly as hobbits), but people also knew each other because, as in russell’s description of New England, they had grown up in the same neighborhoods, gone to the same (one of two or three) high schools, etc.
A bunch of my relatives ended up in Florida. One of the Orlando ones said, when I was visiting many years ago, “It’s weird here. No one is from here.”
Another bunch live in a town that had about 3500 people when my family visited in 1963. Now it has 65000+.
And we won’t get into the bitching I had to listen to when they ran out of English ballots one year. 😉
While I am an advocate of ballot-by-mail where states want to do it, I’m also in favor of systems that do the job well. This year in particular, the old saw about “amateurs worry about tactics, professionals worry about logistics” is appropriate. Who’s going to print the ballots? Who’s going to stuff the envelopes (a critical security step is tracking the specific return envelope sent to each individual voter)? What’s the process for handling ballots when they arrive by the truckload every day for two weeks (eg, verifying signatures)? Are there enough machines to count the ballots in a reasonable time? If not machines, where will the bodies come from and how will they get trained up (the usual answer of “volunteer oldsters” may be a problem if the oldsters are still staying home)? We’re at the end of May, so something under five months until ballots need to go into the mail. Any state that doesn’t have answers to those questions now is likely to have a mess on their hands, fraud or not.
Things that are easy to do for one ballot become very difficult for a million ballots. Scale is a problem all on its own.
While I am an advocate of ballot-by-mail where states want to do it, I’m also in favor of systems that do the job well. This year in particular, the old saw about “amateurs worry about tactics, professionals worry about logistics” is appropriate. Who’s going to print the ballots? Who’s going to stuff the envelopes (a critical security step is tracking the specific return envelope sent to each individual voter)? What’s the process for handling ballots when they arrive by the truckload every day for two weeks (eg, verifying signatures)? Are there enough machines to count the ballots in a reasonable time? If not machines, where will the bodies come from and how will they get trained up (the usual answer of “volunteer oldsters” may be a problem if the oldsters are still staying home)? We’re at the end of May, so something under five months until ballots need to go into the mail. Any state that doesn’t have answers to those questions now is likely to have a mess on their hands, fraud or not.
Things that are easy to do for one ballot become very difficult for a million ballots. Scale is a problem all on its own.
Grew up in/near a town of 8000 in WI. Both polling places I remember you couldn’t not run into people you knew.
CO and CA (urban districts, all), I don’t think I ever saw the same people twice if they weren’t poll workers. I’ve only ever been to a polling place once in 16 years of voting (permanent absentee) in CA, and that because I had let my ballot sit too long. So we walked to the closest polling place (10 min walk) and dropped them off with no fuss and no wait.
I do know that Latinx mail-in ballots get challenged at about 2x the rate of non-Latinx ballots, so it seems that there really is no difference between that and voting in person…
Grew up in/near a town of 8000 in WI. Both polling places I remember you couldn’t not run into people you knew.
CO and CA (urban districts, all), I don’t think I ever saw the same people twice if they weren’t poll workers. I’ve only ever been to a polling place once in 16 years of voting (permanent absentee) in CA, and that because I had let my ballot sit too long. So we walked to the closest polling place (10 min walk) and dropped them off with no fuss and no wait.
I do know that Latinx mail-in ballots get challenged at about 2x the rate of non-Latinx ballots, so it seems that there really is no difference between that and voting in person…
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail.
Well, if they get some numbnut to do the dirty work and then hang them out to dry, mission accomplished. One only has to look at the parade of idiots who have their moment in the sun and are then discarded when their behavior leads to problems.
i know it makes me a bad liberal, but i have to admit that NC’s recent trouble has soured me on vote-by-mail.
Well, if they get some numbnut to do the dirty work and then hang them out to dry, mission accomplished. One only has to look at the parade of idiots who have their moment in the sun and are then discarded when their behavior leads to problems.
The “you have to prove it will fail” argument is a red herring.
Michael Cain’s comment, which I have no argument with, notwithstanding, your assertion would be correct if vote-by-mail wasn’t already a well-established thing with a track record. And you still don’t acknowledge the shortcomings, particularly now, of voting in person. Logistical problems in places unprepared are an issue, but the idea that vote-by-mail is inherently infeasible because of fraud is absolutely on you to prove. How have states been doing it all this time?
The “you have to prove it will fail” argument is a red herring.
Michael Cain’s comment, which I have no argument with, notwithstanding, your assertion would be correct if vote-by-mail wasn’t already a well-established thing with a track record. And you still don’t acknowledge the shortcomings, particularly now, of voting in person. Logistical problems in places unprepared are an issue, but the idea that vote-by-mail is inherently infeasible because of fraud is absolutely on you to prove. How have states been doing it all this time?
It’s not on me to prove that incidents like NC would be more widespread if vote by mail became more widespread. The only two places I am aware of that simply mail ballots out to all registered voters are Oregon and Washington and they could have more controls than I am aware of, or more fraud than you are. Or both.
It is not sufficient, to me, to justify having every ballot have no chain of custody that you simply declare there havent been any problems yet.
It’s not on me to prove that incidents like NC would be more widespread if vote by mail became more widespread. The only two places I am aware of that simply mail ballots out to all registered voters are Oregon and Washington and they could have more controls than I am aware of, or more fraud than you are. Or both.
It is not sufficient, to me, to justify having every ballot have no chain of custody that you simply declare there havent been any problems yet.
OK, let’s assume (for the sake of discussion) that vote by mail is as enormously problematic as Marty contends. The question arises: how have the places which have been using it extensively (not just the few that do it 100%, but those where it is used by at least, say a quarter of the voters), how have they all avoided having numerous problems? If it’s that bad, there should have been lots and lots of problems. So many that they couldn’t help having lots of them come to light.
And yet, we all talk about that incident in North Carolina precisely because it is so exceptional. Most places just don’t have problems. Some are solid blue, some are swing states, some are solid red. But what they have in common is lots of vote by mail and no problems. How is that even possible?
OK, let’s assume (for the sake of discussion) that vote by mail is as enormously problematic as Marty contends. The question arises: how have the places which have been using it extensively (not just the few that do it 100%, but those where it is used by at least, say a quarter of the voters), how have they all avoided having numerous problems? If it’s that bad, there should have been lots and lots of problems. So many that they couldn’t help having lots of them come to light.
And yet, we all talk about that incident in North Carolina precisely because it is so exceptional. Most places just don’t have problems. Some are solid blue, some are swing states, some are solid red. But what they have in common is lots of vote by mail and no problems. How is that even possible?
The only two places I am aware of that simply mail ballots out to all registered voters are Oregon and Washington and they could have more controls than I am aware of, or more fraud than you are.
Also Colorado since 2013, and Hawaii and Utah starting in 2020. Colorado allows in-person voting for people who prefer that, even though everyone who is already registered will get a by-mail ballot. Arizona is about 80% ballots by mail, Montana and California about 70%, and New Mexico around 65%.
Oregon has poured lots of money into searching for fraud for lots of years and can’t find it. Colorado wins the awards that the experts give out for secure, accurate elections. All the evidence suggests that if you want to steal an election, you have to resort to wholesale fraud — non-voters mucking with lots of ballots. A well-designed ballot-by-mail system is inherently more secure against wholesale fraud because there are so many more audits and consistency checks applied.
None of that applies to badly designed systems. Badly-designed absentee ballot systems have been abused for years.
The only two places I am aware of that simply mail ballots out to all registered voters are Oregon and Washington and they could have more controls than I am aware of, or more fraud than you are.
Also Colorado since 2013, and Hawaii and Utah starting in 2020. Colorado allows in-person voting for people who prefer that, even though everyone who is already registered will get a by-mail ballot. Arizona is about 80% ballots by mail, Montana and California about 70%, and New Mexico around 65%.
Oregon has poured lots of money into searching for fraud for lots of years and can’t find it. Colorado wins the awards that the experts give out for secure, accurate elections. All the evidence suggests that if you want to steal an election, you have to resort to wholesale fraud — non-voters mucking with lots of ballots. A well-designed ballot-by-mail system is inherently more secure against wholesale fraud because there are so many more audits and consistency checks applied.
None of that applies to badly designed systems. Badly-designed absentee ballot systems have been abused for years.
(R)’s don’t want vote by mail, because it will increase voter turnout, which makes them more likely to lose.
Several of them have said so, explicitly, on the record. Including the POTUS.
The logistics of voter fraud in either in-person or by-mail voting are such that it is grossly impractical to make it work in numbers large enough to matter. See also, NC.
And Marty, since voting by mail already exists in virtually all places, it actually *is* on you to demonstrate not only why incidents like NC would be more widespread, but why we should think they would not be identified and addressed. As they were in NC.
Voting by mail not only exists, it’s quite common. It’s dead normal. It’s been in place for years and years.
Suddenly, it’s a danger to our electoral system?
It’s on you to show why.
(R)’s don’t want vote by mail, because it will increase voter turnout, which makes them more likely to lose.
Several of them have said so, explicitly, on the record. Including the POTUS.
The logistics of voter fraud in either in-person or by-mail voting are such that it is grossly impractical to make it work in numbers large enough to matter. See also, NC.
And Marty, since voting by mail already exists in virtually all places, it actually *is* on you to demonstrate not only why incidents like NC would be more widespread, but why we should think they would not be identified and addressed. As they were in NC.
Voting by mail not only exists, it’s quite common. It’s dead normal. It’s been in place for years and years.
Suddenly, it’s a danger to our electoral system?
It’s on you to show why.
Michael,
Many of the places you name dont just mail out ballots to everyone. I’m curious what audits and consistency checks there are in those places that do.(I will look it up, not asking anyone else to)
It seems more likely as states that are more competitive start to have widespread ballot availability that smaller fraud can have greater impact. It seems mail in voting is irrelevant in CA for example, except a few more Republicans might bother to vote. CO has been more competitive so it’s a good sign if it’s a good model.
AZ, if I recall correctly, did have some issues.
Michael,
Many of the places you name dont just mail out ballots to everyone. I’m curious what audits and consistency checks there are in those places that do.(I will look it up, not asking anyone else to)
It seems more likely as states that are more competitive start to have widespread ballot availability that smaller fraud can have greater impact. It seems mail in voting is irrelevant in CA for example, except a few more Republicans might bother to vote. CO has been more competitive so it’s a good sign if it’s a good model.
AZ, if I recall correctly, did have some issues.
russell, I’m not R’s. I’m me. I dont have to prove anything except that it is less secure than having a person walk up show an ID and get a ballot. Which it is.
Absentee voting is controlled at various levels of success. That’s a different thing, in kind. If it’s on anyone then it’s on the people wanting to change the rules that it is as secure as the current method. You cant.
russell, I’m not R’s. I’m me. I dont have to prove anything except that it is less secure than having a person walk up show an ID and get a ballot. Which it is.
Absentee voting is controlled at various levels of success. That’s a different thing, in kind. If it’s on anyone then it’s on the people wanting to change the rules that it is as secure as the current method. You cant.
I dont have to prove anything except that it is less secure than having a person walk up show an ID and get a ballot. Which it is.
So “Which it is” is your idea of proof?
It’s certainly true that no one can make you prove anything. But then, no one has to put any credence in your evidence-free assertions, either.
I dont have to prove anything except that it is less secure than having a person walk up show an ID and get a ballot. Which it is.
So “Which it is” is your idea of proof?
It’s certainly true that no one can make you prove anything. But then, no one has to put any credence in your evidence-free assertions, either.
It’s certainly more secure from a public health standpoint, which is the very reason we’re even discussing it right now. And the fact is, as has been demonstrated, it’s a more than reasonably viable voting system. If Dear Leader, whom you claim to dislike and who claimed millions voted fraudulently in person in an election he won, weren’t making a bullsh*t issue of mail-in voting, would it even occurred to you that it might be a problem?
It’s certainly more secure from a public health standpoint, which is the very reason we’re even discussing it right now. And the fact is, as has been demonstrated, it’s a more than reasonably viable voting system. If Dear Leader, whom you claim to dislike and who claimed millions voted fraudulently in person in an election he won, weren’t making a bullsh*t issue of mail-in voting, would it even occurred to you that it might be a problem?
In what jurisdictions do you have to show ID to vote? I don’t even have to sign my name.
How is vote by mail different from absentee ballot? Because they pro-actively mail you a ballot? That’s less secure than going on a website and saying “Hey, send me a ballot”?
You say somebody’s gonna pay people for their ballots. How many times do you think that will happen before somebody notices?
There are no foolproof schemes, and there doesn’t need to be. There need to be procedues that make it impractical to hack an election by ballot fraud.
Those appear to be in place. Even with pretty widespread voting by mail, we have pretty reliable elections.
In what jurisdictions do you have to show ID to vote? I don’t even have to sign my name.
How is vote by mail different from absentee ballot? Because they pro-actively mail you a ballot? That’s less secure than going on a website and saying “Hey, send me a ballot”?
You say somebody’s gonna pay people for their ballots. How many times do you think that will happen before somebody notices?
There are no foolproof schemes, and there doesn’t need to be. There need to be procedues that make it impractical to hack an election by ballot fraud.
Those appear to be in place. Even with pretty widespread voting by mail, we have pretty reliable elections.
People generally don’t show ID to vote either way, Marty. Now we’ve moved the goalpost to voter-ID. Meh…
People generally don’t show ID to vote either way, Marty. Now we’ve moved the goalpost to voter-ID. Meh…
Badly-designed absentee ballot systems have been abused for years.
But then, badly (or, in some cases, deliberately) designed in-person systems have been abused for even more years.
One of my earliest political memories is my Dad saying that the 1960 election was decided by holding up returns from Illinois (which he was from) while Mayor Daley “voted the graveyards”.
Badly-designed absentee ballot systems have been abused for years.
But then, badly (or, in some cases, deliberately) designed in-person systems have been abused for even more years.
One of my earliest political memories is my Dad saying that the 1960 election was decided by holding up returns from Illinois (which he was from) while Mayor Daley “voted the graveyards”.
AZ, if I recall correctly, did have some issues.
Assuming we’re talking about the same events, there were accusations. Multiple investigations found no evidence that anything illegal had occurred. The legislature changed the law to make such events illegal. That law is currently on hold, having been found to discriminate against Native Americans.
AZ, if I recall correctly, did have some issues.
Assuming we’re talking about the same events, there were accusations. Multiple investigations found no evidence that anything illegal had occurred. The legislature changed the law to make such events illegal. That law is currently on hold, having been found to discriminate against Native Americans.
I have heard my son’s girlfriend, who grew up in Chicago, still use the venerable phrase, “Vote early, vote often.”
I have heard my son’s girlfriend, who grew up in Chicago, still use the venerable phrase, “Vote early, vote often.”
All pretence of wanting an independent judiciary has gone.
Graham urges senior judges to step aside so Trump, GOP can replace them
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/499957-graham-urges-senior-judges-to-step-aside-ahead-of-november-election
… “This is an historic opportunity. We’ve put over 200 federal judges on the bench. I think 1 in 5 federal judges are Trump appointees. … So if you’re a circuit judge in your mid-60s, late 60s, you can take senior status; now would be a good time to do that if you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center. This is a good time to do it,” Graham added.
He also encouraged judges who want to make sure a successor can be confirmed by the November election to announce their plans to retire sooner rather than later, adding that he would “need some time” to get them through the committee….
All pretence of wanting an independent judiciary has gone.
Graham urges senior judges to step aside so Trump, GOP can replace them
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/499957-graham-urges-senior-judges-to-step-aside-ahead-of-november-election
… “This is an historic opportunity. We’ve put over 200 federal judges on the bench. I think 1 in 5 federal judges are Trump appointees. … So if you’re a circuit judge in your mid-60s, late 60s, you can take senior status; now would be a good time to do that if you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center. This is a good time to do it,” Graham added.
He also encouraged judges who want to make sure a successor can be confirmed by the November election to announce their plans to retire sooner rather than later, adding that he would “need some time” to get them through the committee….
Certain totalitarian freedom-averse countries (e.g. Germany) employ a tool quite effective against in-person voting fraud: national mandatory ID (also quite useful in many other situations). But, as we all know, that is impossible in the US where only selective ID for undesirables passes muster. And as far as voting goes: constantly changing ID requirements depending on how difficult they are to obtain for undesirables.
Certain totalitarian freedom-averse countries (e.g. Germany) employ a tool quite effective against in-person voting fraud: national mandatory ID (also quite useful in many other situations). But, as we all know, that is impossible in the US where only selective ID for undesirables passes muster. And as far as voting goes: constantly changing ID requirements depending on how difficult they are to obtain for undesirables.
An, unfortunately now deceased, old lady from Texas who I knew had (in the Dubya years) to deal with GOP ‘poll watchers’ who worked on the principle of ‘challenge any potential Dem voter in order to create as much delay as possible’.
In a polling place where everyone (except the GOPnik) knew her, he tried to persuade the poll workers that she was not who she claimed she was, was not eligible to vote etc. The way she told it she made a very loud scene, called him a POS and, if the poll workers had not removed him, she would have resorted to hitting him with her walking stick.
How many will have that same courage facing one or more of the 50K thugs* the GOP plans to send out (ideally ‘figures of authority’) and how many will get supported in that by the poll workers?
*with proper armlets just minus the swastika
An, unfortunately now deceased, old lady from Texas who I knew had (in the Dubya years) to deal with GOP ‘poll watchers’ who worked on the principle of ‘challenge any potential Dem voter in order to create as much delay as possible’.
In a polling place where everyone (except the GOPnik) knew her, he tried to persuade the poll workers that she was not who she claimed she was, was not eligible to vote etc. The way she told it she made a very loud scene, called him a POS and, if the poll workers had not removed him, she would have resorted to hitting him with her walking stick.
How many will have that same courage facing one or more of the 50K thugs* the GOP plans to send out (ideally ‘figures of authority’) and how many will get supported in that by the poll workers?
*with proper armlets just minus the swastika
Also from the culture war front:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/28/masks-not-allowed-coronavirus/
Admittedly, requiring masks inside bars and restaurants (i.e. not takeout) is a wee bit silly.
Also from the culture war front:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/28/masks-not-allowed-coronavirus/
Admittedly, requiring masks inside bars and restaurants (i.e. not takeout) is a wee bit silly.
with proper armlets just minus the swastika
Who needs a swastika when you’ve got your AK-47s? That’s real authority.
with proper armlets just minus the swastika
Who needs a swastika when you’ve got your AK-47s? That’s real authority.
An intetesting commentary on the state of the nation.
A few weeks ago, a bunch of heavily-armed (white) thugs showed up to invade and disrupt the Michigan state legislature. They were “just exercising their constitutional rights,” so the police just watched.
This week, a bunch of unarmed (mostly black) peaceful protesters turned up (outside) in front of a police station in Minneapolis. And were greeted with tear gas and rubber bullets.
Somehow I have trouble believing the critical difference was Michigan vs Minnesota.
An intetesting commentary on the state of the nation.
A few weeks ago, a bunch of heavily-armed (white) thugs showed up to invade and disrupt the Michigan state legislature. They were “just exercising their constitutional rights,” so the police just watched.
This week, a bunch of unarmed (mostly black) peaceful protesters turned up (outside) in front of a police station in Minneapolis. And were greeted with tear gas and rubber bullets.
Somehow I have trouble believing the critical difference was Michigan vs Minnesota.
wj @11:43 — thanks for putting it so succinctly.
In this country it’s so ordinary it’s invisible, like the air, which is also always with us.
wj @11:43 — thanks for putting it so succinctly.
In this country it’s so ordinary it’s invisible, like the air, which is also always with us.
It belatedly occurs to me that it could be argued that the differing responses should be taken evidence in support of the 2nd Amendment. But if anybody honestly thinks that armed protesters in Minneapolis would have gotten a less violent reception, well I can make you a great deal on this bridge I’m selling.
It belatedly occurs to me that it could be argued that the differing responses should be taken evidence in support of the 2nd Amendment. But if anybody honestly thinks that armed protesters in Minneapolis would have gotten a less violent reception, well I can make you a great deal on this bridge I’m selling.
[Just dropping this in here as something I would have added to “the art of playing time” if it weren’t buried on a back page at this point:
https://afrikansciences.bandcamp.com/track/in-thing-for-the-dough
Afrikan Science, doing up the polyrhythms to destroy grids in EDM]
[Just dropping this in here as something I would have added to “the art of playing time” if it weren’t buried on a back page at this point:
https://afrikansciences.bandcamp.com/track/in-thing-for-the-dough
Afrikan Science, doing up the polyrhythms to destroy grids in EDM]
Minnesota doubles down on looking bad.
“As CNN reports,
Watch the video here.”
Minnesota Police Arrest CNN Reporters for the Act of Doing Journalism During George Floyd Protests: So much for the First Amendment.
And when the protests turned into vandalism and looting, the Minneapolis police left it to citizens with guns to protect property. Perhaps some of those “heavily-armed (white) thugs.”
“That these four amateurs were able to protect this one business raises the question of why the city’s more numerous and better equipped professional police weren’t able to protect other businesses in a similar fashion.
Police departments exist, at least on paper, in order to protect people’s rights and people’s property. Over the past couple of days, police in Minneapolis have proven unable to do either.”
Minneapolis Police Killed George Floyd, Then Failed To Protect Property Owners From Riots: Police departments exist to protect people’s persons and property. The Minneapolis Police Department has failed to do either.
Minnesota doubles down on looking bad.
“As CNN reports,
Watch the video here.”
Minnesota Police Arrest CNN Reporters for the Act of Doing Journalism During George Floyd Protests: So much for the First Amendment.
And when the protests turned into vandalism and looting, the Minneapolis police left it to citizens with guns to protect property. Perhaps some of those “heavily-armed (white) thugs.”
“That these four amateurs were able to protect this one business raises the question of why the city’s more numerous and better equipped professional police weren’t able to protect other businesses in a similar fashion.
Police departments exist, at least on paper, in order to protect people’s rights and people’s property. Over the past couple of days, police in Minneapolis have proven unable to do either.”
Minneapolis Police Killed George Floyd, Then Failed To Protect Property Owners From Riots: Police departments exist to protect people’s persons and property. The Minneapolis Police Department has failed to do either.
This week, a bunch of unarmed (mostly black) peaceful protesters turned up (outside) in front of a police station in Minneapolis. And were greeted with tear gas and rubber bullets.
and the President, and leader of the Republican Party, called for citizens to be shot by police.
i bet his adoration among Republicans skyrockets.
This week, a bunch of unarmed (mostly black) peaceful protesters turned up (outside) in front of a police station in Minneapolis. And were greeted with tear gas and rubber bullets.
and the President, and leader of the Republican Party, called for citizens to be shot by police.
i bet his adoration among Republicans skyrockets.
CharlesWT,
If you and your buddies at “Reason” are in favor of “heavily-armed BLACK thugs” protecting their lives, liberty, and property — not to mention their voting rights — with “2nd Amendment solutions” then you have principles but no brains.
If not, then vice versa.
–TP
CharlesWT,
If you and your buddies at “Reason” are in favor of “heavily-armed BLACK thugs” protecting their lives, liberty, and property — not to mention their voting rights — with “2nd Amendment solutions” then you have principles but no brains.
If not, then vice versa.
–TP
What Janie said @11.53
What Janie said @11.53
Well yes, but as a white person, I have to retract what I wrote, or revise it. Because the phenomena in question are certainly not invisible to black people.
I think the word “privilege” was the wrong word to apply to the concept it’s now used for, but since it’s the word we have, I’ll confess, with shame, to having exposed my own privilege by my 11:53 comment.
Biden just said, “We are a country with an open wound.”
Yes.
But then he said something like, “Imagine if you have to have that talk….”
Which again AFAICT is addressed to white people. (Disclaimer: I haven’t finished listening to his short speech.) Black Americans have no need to imagine it.
What a mess.
1968 all over again? With a virus on the loose?
Well yes, but as a white person, I have to retract what I wrote, or revise it. Because the phenomena in question are certainly not invisible to black people.
I think the word “privilege” was the wrong word to apply to the concept it’s now used for, but since it’s the word we have, I’ll confess, with shame, to having exposed my own privilege by my 11:53 comment.
Biden just said, “We are a country with an open wound.”
Yes.
But then he said something like, “Imagine if you have to have that talk….”
Which again AFAICT is addressed to white people. (Disclaimer: I haven’t finished listening to his short speech.) Black Americans have no need to imagine it.
What a mess.
1968 all over again? With a virus on the loose?
Georgia requires showing ID when voting in person; I believe if the address on ID does not match address in voter registration records then you have to cast a provisional ballot and/or can only vote in statewide elections. Never had that issue so not sure of the details.
However, the state has responded to the pandemic by delaying primaries twice, now scheduled for June 9, and by mailing absentee ballot applications to ALL registered voters. There were definitely snafus in the process, but something over 1.5 million absentee ballots have been sent to voters and over 600,000 already returned. This in a state that has never had vote by mail except for the small number of “traditional” absentee ballots.
Only 9 states have more registered voters than Georgia, and the largest, California, already does a sizeable % of mail-in ballots. The logistics do not seem like an insurmountable problem.
Happy to be shown wrong if anyone has the energy to do the research, but my intuition is that the expense of printing, mailing, processing, and counting ballots would be much less than the purchase, storage, and security of dedicated electronic voting machines that get used maybe a few times a year (Georgia has purchased and is using new machines this year). Some “small government fiscal responsibility” we can all agree on?
Georgia requires showing ID when voting in person; I believe if the address on ID does not match address in voter registration records then you have to cast a provisional ballot and/or can only vote in statewide elections. Never had that issue so not sure of the details.
However, the state has responded to the pandemic by delaying primaries twice, now scheduled for June 9, and by mailing absentee ballot applications to ALL registered voters. There were definitely snafus in the process, but something over 1.5 million absentee ballots have been sent to voters and over 600,000 already returned. This in a state that has never had vote by mail except for the small number of “traditional” absentee ballots.
Only 9 states have more registered voters than Georgia, and the largest, California, already does a sizeable % of mail-in ballots. The logistics do not seem like an insurmountable problem.
Happy to be shown wrong if anyone has the energy to do the research, but my intuition is that the expense of printing, mailing, processing, and counting ballots would be much less than the purchase, storage, and security of dedicated electronic voting machines that get used maybe a few times a year (Georgia has purchased and is using new machines this year). Some “small government fiscal responsibility” we can all agree on?
Yes, nostra culpa (if that is the correct form – Hartmut can advise).
Which goes to something I have sometimes wondered: are any frequent commenters, or lurkers, people of colour? Our (or at least my) assumption was not. I hope it’s wrong.
Yes, nostra culpa (if that is the correct form – Hartmut can advise).
Which goes to something I have sometimes wondered: are any frequent commenters, or lurkers, people of colour? Our (or at least my) assumption was not. I hope it’s wrong.
If you and your buddies at “Reason” are in favor of “heavily-armed BLACK thugs” protecting their lives, liberty, and property …
Buddies at Reason and libertarians, in general, tend to not make distinctions between individuals based on what kinds of tans they have.
If you and your buddies at “Reason” are in favor of “heavily-armed BLACK thugs” protecting their lives, liberty, and property …
Buddies at Reason and libertarians, in general, tend to not make distinctions between individuals based on what kinds of tans they have.
If you (the general “you,” not you CharlesWT) don’t make those distinctions, then I assume the answer is that you are in favor of anyone, regardless of melanin, employing “2nd Amendment solutions.” But that would mean you do approve of “heavily-armed BLACK thugs” doing so, along with all the other kinds of “heavily-armed thugs.” So TonyP’s either-or formulation leaves you with principles.
If you (the general “you,” not you CharlesWT) don’t make those distinctions, then I assume the answer is that you are in favor of anyone, regardless of melanin, employing “2nd Amendment solutions.” But that would mean you do approve of “heavily-armed BLACK thugs” doing so, along with all the other kinds of “heavily-armed thugs.” So TonyP’s either-or formulation leaves you with principles.
If you mean by “2nd Amendment solutions” people using guns to defend themselves, others, and property, then yes.
If you mean by “2nd Amendment solutions” people using guns to defend themselves, others, and property, then yes.
Could we have an example or two of “heavily-armed white thugs” defending OTHERS?
Libertarians need their guns to protect their 2nd Amenendment rights, and the 2nd Amendment to protect their guns, AFAICT. An air-tight bit of “Reason”ing, I grant you, but still something sane people can snort derisively down their noses at.
–TP
Could we have an example or two of “heavily-armed white thugs” defending OTHERS?
Libertarians need their guns to protect their 2nd Amenendment rights, and the 2nd Amendment to protect their guns, AFAICT. An air-tight bit of “Reason”ing, I grant you, but still something sane people can snort derisively down their noses at.
–TP
The logistics do not seem like an insurmountable problem.
Not insurmountable, but a bunch of possible gotchas due to scale, especially the first time around, and if done on a tight schedule. States that adopt a full vote-by-mail system usually allow 18 months to get ready for the first general election.
The logistics do not seem like an insurmountable problem.
Not insurmountable, but a bunch of possible gotchas due to scale, especially the first time around, and if done on a tight schedule. States that adopt a full vote-by-mail system usually allow 18 months to get ready for the first general election.
More time to prepare, and more time preparing, is of course better. I was trying to provide an example of a largish state managing to respond in a decent-ish manner in the space of a few months. Less time than between now and the general election. It’s not a full vote-by-mail, but as a one-time stop-gap solution, giving voters an easy way to request absentee ballots is a positive step. More absentee ballots sent out than the number of registered voters in 19 states.
More time to prepare, and more time preparing, is of course better. I was trying to provide an example of a largish state managing to respond in a decent-ish manner in the space of a few months. Less time than between now and the general election. It’s not a full vote-by-mail, but as a one-time stop-gap solution, giving voters an easy way to request absentee ballots is a positive step. More absentee ballots sent out than the number of registered voters in 19 states.
“In the wake of the police-involved death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, armed black activists have stepped up as the city endures protests, riots, and looting.
A video of a group of armed black residents in St. Paul went viral on Thursday. The video shows armed black men standing in front of a store. The person who is recording says that the business they’re protecting is black-owned. A black gunman can be seen in the background of another video featuring civilians protecting a store.
The armed civilians aren’t just protecting property. They’re also using their Second Amendment rights to bolster their First Amendment right to protest.”
Black Civilians Arm Themselves To Protest Racial Violence and Protect Black-Owned Businesses: They’re using their Second Amendment rights to protect local businesses from riots and looting.
“In the wake of the police-involved death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, armed black activists have stepped up as the city endures protests, riots, and looting.
A video of a group of armed black residents in St. Paul went viral on Thursday. The video shows armed black men standing in front of a store. The person who is recording says that the business they’re protecting is black-owned. A black gunman can be seen in the background of another video featuring civilians protecting a store.
The armed civilians aren’t just protecting property. They’re also using their Second Amendment rights to bolster their First Amendment right to protest.”
Black Civilians Arm Themselves To Protest Racial Violence and Protect Black-Owned Businesses: They’re using their Second Amendment rights to protect local businesses from riots and looting.
Sounds like Minneapolis is on its way to libertarian heaven: everybody with weapons and no government control in prospect. Tough on the folks who aren’t interested in playing war games with real people dying, of course.
But libertarians like Charles are all in for it. Pity it will take a while to achieve the heaven that is Somalia….
Sounds like Minneapolis is on its way to libertarian heaven: everybody with weapons and no government control in prospect. Tough on the folks who aren’t interested in playing war games with real people dying, of course.
But libertarians like Charles are all in for it. Pity it will take a while to achieve the heaven that is Somalia….
Sounds like Minneapolis is on its way to libertarian heaven
And then there’s Chicago that, in spite of having some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and the lockdown, had its deadliest Memorial Day weekend in five years.
Sounds like Minneapolis is on its way to libertarian heaven
And then there’s Chicago that, in spite of having some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and the lockdown, had its deadliest Memorial Day weekend in five years.
It’s almost like Chicago can’t wall itself off from more lax gun laws elsewhere.
It’s almost like Chicago can’t wall itself off from more lax gun laws elsewhere.
what hsh said.
what hsh said.
So outside my workplace has become a protest turned to riot scene. Dozen cop cars windows smashed, one set on fire. Things are getting tamped down, hopefully when I leave in an hour there won’t be random rowdies on downtown streets looking for more mayhem.
So outside my workplace has become a protest turned to riot scene. Dozen cop cars windows smashed, one set on fire. Things are getting tamped down, hopefully when I leave in an hour there won’t be random rowdies on downtown streets looking for more mayhem.
Priest — I hope you can stay safe. I’ll be thinking of you, as I’m sure everyone else around here will too.
Priest — I hope you can stay safe. I’ll be thinking of you, as I’m sure everyone else around here will too.
It’s almost like, when the law becomes a farce, people stop taking it seriously.
It’s almost like, when the people who should be watching out for you shackle you and kneel on your neck until you’re dead, you no longer give a flying fuck.
Right?
The dudes in Minneapolis guarding their tobacco shop with their semi-automatics did well, because the wheels appear to be coming off in their particular part of the world. If they’re wise they’ll leave it at that and not venture out into the rest of the whirlwind.
Priest, stay safe.
It’s almost like, when the law becomes a farce, people stop taking it seriously.
It’s almost like, when the people who should be watching out for you shackle you and kneel on your neck until you’re dead, you no longer give a flying fuck.
Right?
The dudes in Minneapolis guarding their tobacco shop with their semi-automatics did well, because the wheels appear to be coming off in their particular part of the world. If they’re wise they’ll leave it at that and not venture out into the rest of the whirlwind.
Priest, stay safe.
So. Minneapolis is the embodiment of the “caretaker” state? I would never have guessed.
So. Minneapolis is the embodiment of the “caretaker” state? I would never have guessed.
This time, even the police unions think Derek Chauvin might have gone a bit too far. Chauvin is one of those problem cops who don’t get fired until they screw up big time.
Even Police Unions Trash the Actions of the Cop Who Killed George Floyd: Are we seeing a tipping point where police begin to grasp why the public is so outraged?
This time, even the police unions think Derek Chauvin might have gone a bit too far. Chauvin is one of those problem cops who don’t get fired until they screw up big time.
Even Police Unions Trash the Actions of the Cop Who Killed George Floyd: Are we seeing a tipping point where police begin to grasp why the public is so outraged?
Home safe. Mayor Bottoms and Killer Mike telling everyone to chill the F out and go home. Silence from Governor Shotgun. I hope no one got hurt. From my vantage point in the building I could see cops walking some cuffed people down the street to the school bus-paddy wagon. But I had my head in the computer reading about politics instead of watching it happen when the people were smashing cop cars, the front of CNN, etc.
Home safe. Mayor Bottoms and Killer Mike telling everyone to chill the F out and go home. Silence from Governor Shotgun. I hope no one got hurt. From my vantage point in the building I could see cops walking some cuffed people down the street to the school bus-paddy wagon. But I had my head in the computer reading about politics instead of watching it happen when the people were smashing cop cars, the front of CNN, etc.
I guess now we’ll see how many of the hardcore MAGAts are Chauvinists.
I guess now we’ll see how many of the hardcore MAGAts are Chauvinists.
Meanwhile destruction and looting have moved to other parts of the city. And other cities. I’m sorry I don’t have any pithy commentary a la JT to add to the conversation.
After I made it safely to the train to get home I overheard some (young, but hell, I’m old, everyone’s younger) folks talking about the one cop car set ablaze. With disappointment that it was only the one and not more. Anecdote not data, yada yada yada. To be clear, I have no point in relating this, other than just to report what I heard. A prism to allow people to see the angles, distortions, and colors they wish to focus on.
Meanwhile destruction and looting have moved to other parts of the city. And other cities. I’m sorry I don’t have any pithy commentary a la JT to add to the conversation.
After I made it safely to the train to get home I overheard some (young, but hell, I’m old, everyone’s younger) folks talking about the one cop car set ablaze. With disappointment that it was only the one and not more. Anecdote not data, yada yada yada. To be clear, I have no point in relating this, other than just to report what I heard. A prism to allow people to see the angles, distortions, and colors they wish to focus on.
Thanks, Priest, for your testimony. And thank [insert deity of choice] for your safety. Pithy commentary unnecessary.
Thanks, Priest, for your testimony. And thank [insert deity of choice] for your safety. Pithy commentary unnecessary.
Sorry, everybody, I see I misposted this part of a comment on the Comparisons thread.
Meanwhile, I thought this a good piece from the NYT on the arrest of the CNN crew in Minneapolis.
Sorry, everybody, I see I misposted this part of a comment on the Comparisons thread.
Meanwhile, I thought this a good piece from the NYT on the arrest of the CNN crew in Minneapolis.
Not content with the damage to their reputation caused by Floyd’s murder (and from the videos that’s pretty clearly what it was), the Minnesota State Patrol arrests a CNN news team live on air.
Just so there is not the least doubt about what was happening, we see the CNN crew identifying themselves and asking explicitly where to police would like them to stand so that they aren’t in the way. And then, the police “explanation” for the arrest is . . . their failure to move.
The explanation for their eventual release is just frosting on the cake: they were released ”once they were confirmed to be members of the media.” Because just anyone might be standing there wearing clothing with CNN logos, holding cameras also with logos, and telling you they are from CNN.
We’re still without an explanation for why the arrest somehow never made it into the system which logs arrests — the CNN guys just disappeared.
Not content with the damage to their reputation caused by Floyd’s murder (and from the videos that’s pretty clearly what it was), the Minnesota State Patrol arrests a CNN news team live on air.
Just so there is not the least doubt about what was happening, we see the CNN crew identifying themselves and asking explicitly where to police would like them to stand so that they aren’t in the way. And then, the police “explanation” for the arrest is . . . their failure to move.
The explanation for their eventual release is just frosting on the cake: they were released ”once they were confirmed to be members of the media.” Because just anyone might be standing there wearing clothing with CNN logos, holding cameras also with logos, and telling you they are from CNN.
We’re still without an explanation for why the arrest somehow never made it into the system which logs arrests — the CNN guys just disappeared.
I was told by campaign staffers in 1968 that votes in Chicago’s primary that year were going for $2 each. It may be hard to impersonate a voter but it isn’t hard to pay someone to vote in person the way you want them to. No way of voting is completely foolproof. Significant voter fraud is hard to get away with no matter what the method unless there is official complicity.
I was told by campaign staffers in 1968 that votes in Chicago’s primary that year were going for $2 each. It may be hard to impersonate a voter but it isn’t hard to pay someone to vote in person the way you want them to. No way of voting is completely foolproof. Significant voter fraud is hard to get away with no matter what the method unless there is official complicity.
one big thing in-person voting has over vote-by-mail is that in a voting booth: there’s little chance you’re going to be watched by a controlling family member, to make sure you’re voting correctly.
one big thing in-person voting has over vote-by-mail is that in a voting booth: there’s little chance you’re going to be watched by a controlling family member, to make sure you’re voting correctly.
::i have too many colons. need to use them up::
::i have too many colons. need to use them up::
Falcon has lifted off!
Second stage separation
(And we have video from inside the capsule (which the Russians have done, but a first for us).
Falcon has lifted off!
Second stage separation
(And we have video from inside the capsule (which the Russians have done, but a first for us).
Orbit insertion.
And the first stage has successfully landed. On a ship named (I’m not making this us!): Of Course I Still Love You
Whimsy is still alive.
Orbit insertion.
And the first stage has successfully landed. On a ship named (I’m not making this us!): Of Course I Still Love You
Whimsy is still alive.
A first for a private company.
A first for a private company.
We may have some Dark Web shenanigans going on from some groups.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/05/30/every-person-arrested-in-saint-paul-last-night-was-from-out-of-state-mayor-says/#35c11241264d
Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington confirmed evidence of white supremacist groups trying to incite violence; Many posted messages online that encouraged people to go loot in Minneapolis and cause mayhem.
Idiot alt-right edgelords aiming for their own Project Mayhem. We are trapped in 1999 film amber as Fight Club battles The Matrix.
We may have some Dark Web shenanigans going on from some groups.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/05/30/every-person-arrested-in-saint-paul-last-night-was-from-out-of-state-mayor-says/#35c11241264d
Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington confirmed evidence of white supremacist groups trying to incite violence; Many posted messages online that encouraged people to go loot in Minneapolis and cause mayhem.
Idiot alt-right edgelords aiming for their own Project Mayhem. We are trapped in 1999 film amber as Fight Club battles The Matrix.
wj — It’s a literary reference — or am I silly to think you don’t know that? From your comment, I can’t tell.
I pay as little attention as possible to Elon Musk (sorry), and I’ve read just one of the Culture books, because that one didn’t grab me and make me read more. But the whimsical naming of ships stuck in my memory.
wj — It’s a literary reference — or am I silly to think you don’t know that? From your comment, I can’t tell.
I pay as little attention as possible to Elon Musk (sorry), and I’ve read just one of the Culture books, because that one didn’t grab me and make me read more. But the whimsical naming of ships stuck in my memory.
::i have too many colons.
Colectomy?
::i have too many colons.
Colectomy?
Colectomy?
A low cut?…
Colectomy?
A low cut?…
and I’ve read just one of the Culture books, because that one didn’t grab me and make me read more….
Shame, that.
And, FWIW, I actually approve of Musk, as dick though he is, he gets good things done.
and I’ve read just one of the Culture books, because that one didn’t grab me and make me read more….
Shame, that.
And, FWIW, I actually approve of Musk, as dick though he is, he gets good things done.
This is not something I would ever accept or forgive, no matter what “good things” he also gets done.
In fact, I was just thinking earlier today that it would almost be worth learning to……well, never mind. 😉
This is not something I would ever accept or forgive, no matter what “good things” he also gets done.
In fact, I was just thinking earlier today that it would almost be worth learning to……well, never mind. 😉
wj — It’s a literary reference — or am I silly to think you don’t know that?
The breadth of my ignorance is not to be underestimated. I’d never heard of the Culture series until just now. Thanks!
wj — It’s a literary reference — or am I silly to think you don’t know that?
The breadth of my ignorance is not to be underestimated. I’d never heard of the Culture series until just now. Thanks!
This is not something I would ever accept or forgive, no matter what “good things” he also gets done.
Historically, the men (and they were mostly men) who got big things done had huge flaws as well. Both in what else they did and as human beings. We shouldn’t forget the flaws (although we routinely do as time passes and few people are around who remember the flaws first hand). But we should acknowledge the good done as well.
Whether the balance is a net plus is a worthwhile question. For example, will Musk’s achievement of vastly cheaper space flight result in an ability to routinely locate astronomical observatories in space (above even his satellites? Not just the rarities like Hubble and Webb, but routinely. That might, looking back from a hundred years on, balance things out.
This is not something I would ever accept or forgive, no matter what “good things” he also gets done.
Historically, the men (and they were mostly men) who got big things done had huge flaws as well. Both in what else they did and as human beings. We shouldn’t forget the flaws (although we routinely do as time passes and few people are around who remember the flaws first hand). But we should acknowledge the good done as well.
Whether the balance is a net plus is a worthwhile question. For example, will Musk’s achievement of vastly cheaper space flight result in an ability to routinely locate astronomical observatories in space (above even his satellites? Not just the rarities like Hubble and Webb, but routinely. That might, looking back from a hundred years on, balance things out.
and I’ve read just one of the Culture books, because that one didn’t grab me and make me read more….
Well, a lot depends on which one it was. I read them all after he died, and loved most (but not all) of them. They differ very widely, between ones which are very character and culture (in the normal sense) driven, and ones which are much more abstract and concerned with what I can only call (after trying to think of a good description) philosophical extrapolation about super-advanced AI and how it might think.
and I’ve read just one of the Culture books, because that one didn’t grab me and make me read more….
Well, a lot depends on which one it was. I read them all after he died, and loved most (but not all) of them. They differ very widely, between ones which are very character and culture (in the normal sense) driven, and ones which are much more abstract and concerned with what I can only call (after trying to think of a good description) philosophical extrapolation about super-advanced AI and how it might think.
Shame, that.
Well, a lot depends on which one it was.
Ya know, it’s not like I contracted some rare disease or something.
Tastes differ. 😉
Shame, that.
Well, a lot depends on which one it was.
Ya know, it’s not like I contracted some rare disease or something.
Tastes differ. 😉
True enough. I guess I was projecting; I’m desperate for good reading matter these days, preferably series!
True enough. I guess I was projecting; I’m desperate for good reading matter these days, preferably series!
I’m 2/3 of the way through Milkman. I was afraid it was going to be horribly depressing, and in the midst of current and personal events I wouldn’t be able to slog through it.
It turns out to be quite wonderful, but very dense and difficult, so slow going. Which is fine at this particular moment.
I’m also reading my maternal grandmother’s diaries, which she kept for the last 8 or 9 years of her life. Far from being slow going, this is fast reading, but completely absorbing for me as an exercise in both personal and American history.
Each entry starts with a brief weather report and continues with a few bare factoids about her day. You’d be hard put to it to prove from the diaries that the woman had an inner life, and if you hadn’t known her, you’d probably be bored silly after a few entries.
For me — it’s mesmerizing. Both my grandmas were semi-mythical characters (both had pet names used by whole communities) (are most grandmothers semi-mythical characters?), but the diaries are making me see my grandmother as the ordinary human being she was, while still leaving intact the memories of how much I adored her when I was a kid, and fleshing out, by implication, some of the reasons why the whole town called her “Aunt Posie.”
I’m 2/3 of the way through Milkman. I was afraid it was going to be horribly depressing, and in the midst of current and personal events I wouldn’t be able to slog through it.
It turns out to be quite wonderful, but very dense and difficult, so slow going. Which is fine at this particular moment.
I’m also reading my maternal grandmother’s diaries, which she kept for the last 8 or 9 years of her life. Far from being slow going, this is fast reading, but completely absorbing for me as an exercise in both personal and American history.
Each entry starts with a brief weather report and continues with a few bare factoids about her day. You’d be hard put to it to prove from the diaries that the woman had an inner life, and if you hadn’t known her, you’d probably be bored silly after a few entries.
For me — it’s mesmerizing. Both my grandmas were semi-mythical characters (both had pet names used by whole communities) (are most grandmothers semi-mythical characters?), but the diaries are making me see my grandmother as the ordinary human being she was, while still leaving intact the memories of how much I adored her when I was a kid, and fleshing out, by implication, some of the reasons why the whole town called her “Aunt Posie.”
True enough. I guess I was projecting; I’m desperate for good reading matter these days, preferably series!
If you can tolerate urban fantasy, I’ve been recommending the Alex Verus series by Benedict Jacka. The protagonist provides a very different take on how an offbeat magical power can still be useful. It takes the author a couple of books to decide that he’s doing a series with an overarching story line rather than just multiple books with the same characters. Set in London, which I always enjoy.
True enough. I guess I was projecting; I’m desperate for good reading matter these days, preferably series!
If you can tolerate urban fantasy, I’ve been recommending the Alex Verus series by Benedict Jacka. The protagonist provides a very different take on how an offbeat magical power can still be useful. It takes the author a couple of books to decide that he’s doing a series with an overarching story line rather than just multiple books with the same characters. Set in London, which I always enjoy.
Set in London, which I always enjoy.
Me too. I might give these a try.
Between Dickens and Shaw and a lot of mysteries set there, London is the city of cities in my imagination. Sadly, I’ve spent very little time there, and the way things are going, well…we’ll see.
Set in London, which I always enjoy.
Me too. I might give these a try.
Between Dickens and Shaw and a lot of mysteries set there, London is the city of cities in my imagination. Sadly, I’ve spent very little time there, and the way things are going, well…we’ll see.
London is the city of cities in my imagination.
I really like some of the odd bits of London geography that get tossed in, although I have no idea if they are accurate or not. One is a walking/bicycle trail connecting two parts of London that would require going the long way about if you drove. It was originally a small rail line connecting, if I’m remembering the detail properly, the city morgue and one of the big cemeteries and used to move bodies. London’s big enough and old enough to have lots of things like that.
Still an open thread? In the neighborhood around the Capitol in Denver there are a number of old state buildings, or former state buildings. If you go deep enough there’s a network of brick-lined tunnels connecting them. They were originally there to distribute coal because the coal company would only deliver to a single address. (In some of them the tracks are still intact.) During the 2008 Democratic Convention there were threats of some big, violent demonstrations at the Capitol. That week the state police set up in the obscure building where I worked. In the event of a riot, the officers would have deployed from my building through the tunnels so they could come out behind the rioters and surprise them. (Nothing happened; it was a calm peaceful week.)
London is the city of cities in my imagination.
I really like some of the odd bits of London geography that get tossed in, although I have no idea if they are accurate or not. One is a walking/bicycle trail connecting two parts of London that would require going the long way about if you drove. It was originally a small rail line connecting, if I’m remembering the detail properly, the city morgue and one of the big cemeteries and used to move bodies. London’s big enough and old enough to have lots of things like that.
Still an open thread? In the neighborhood around the Capitol in Denver there are a number of old state buildings, or former state buildings. If you go deep enough there’s a network of brick-lined tunnels connecting them. They were originally there to distribute coal because the coal company would only deliver to a single address. (In some of them the tracks are still intact.) During the 2008 Democratic Convention there were threats of some big, violent demonstrations at the Capitol. That week the state police set up in the obscure building where I worked. In the event of a riot, the officers would have deployed from my building through the tunnels so they could come out behind the rioters and surprise them. (Nothing happened; it was a calm peaceful week.)
London’s big enough and old enough…
I love this stuff. From Wikipedia:
As to tunnels, there’s a tunnel system under the MIT campus, but I’m a boring enough person so that I only ever went into it once when I was an undergrad. Vaguely related: some years ago (15? 20?) I went and got an alumni ID, and lo and behold, it opens doors that are locked. I’m sure not that many, but enough so that on a cold winter day I was able to get inside a building at one end of the main part of campus and walk indoors to the other end.
London’s big enough and old enough…
I love this stuff. From Wikipedia:
As to tunnels, there’s a tunnel system under the MIT campus, but I’m a boring enough person so that I only ever went into it once when I was an undergrad. Vaguely related: some years ago (15? 20?) I went and got an alumni ID, and lo and behold, it opens doors that are locked. I’m sure not that many, but enough so that on a cold winter day I was able to get inside a building at one end of the main part of campus and walk indoors to the other end.
Open thread stuff for sure… 😉
The bit about bridges over the Thames reminded me that I (thought I had) read long ago (pre-internet) that the island that is now England and Scotland was connected to the mainland as recently as about 8000 years ago.
Googling, I first found this, which suggests that I misremembered badly.
But then there’s this, which puts the land “bridge” more northerly than what seems like the obvious place (across the Channel, which is where I imagined it).
Open thread stuff for sure… 😉
The bit about bridges over the Thames reminded me that I (thought I had) read long ago (pre-internet) that the island that is now England and Scotland was connected to the mainland as recently as about 8000 years ago.
Googling, I first found this, which suggests that I misremembered badly.
But then there’s this, which puts the land “bridge” more northerly than what seems like the obvious place (across the Channel, which is where I imagined it).
Michael Cain, I believe I can tolerate it!
I’ll give it a look, thanks.
Michael Cain, I believe I can tolerate it!
I’ll give it a look, thanks.
Salem MA is apparently rotten with tunnels. In the late 18th C. / early 19th C. it was a major port, and the tunnels were allegedly used to smuggle stuff to avoid customs duties.
A guy I know does tours.
Salem MA is apparently rotten with tunnels. In the late 18th C. / early 19th C. it was a major port, and the tunnels were allegedly used to smuggle stuff to avoid customs duties.
A guy I know does tours.
there are tunnels under RIT, in Rochester NY, and everybody uses them all the time – because who would rather walk around outside in a Great Lakes winter?
there are tunnels under RIT, in Rochester NY, and everybody uses them all the time – because who would rather walk around outside in a Great Lakes winter?
As to tunnels, there’s a tunnel system under the MIT campus, but I’m a boring enough person so that I only ever went into it once when I was an undergrad.
I would expect a boring person to really dig tunnels.
As to tunnels, there’s a tunnel system under the MIT campus, but I’m a boring enough person so that I only ever went into it once when I was an undergrad.
I would expect a boring person to really dig tunnels.
I would expect a boring person to really dig tunnels.
Groan. 😉
I would expect a boring person to really dig tunnels.
Groan. 😉
…One is a walking/bicycle trail connecting two parts of London that would require going the long way about if you drove. It was originally a small rail line connecting, if I’m remembering the detail properly, the city morgue and one of the big cemeteries and used to move bodies…
I’m not aware of this trail – does it exist?
There used to be a London Necropolis Railway, running from Waterloo to Brookwood Cemetery about 30 miles away. And another dedicated rail service from Kings Cross about 8 miles north to New Southgate Cemetery.
There’s a story about a tunnel under Whitechapel Road, from Royal London Hospital to Whitechapel Station, once used for moving dead bodies. It might not be true.
…One is a walking/bicycle trail connecting two parts of London that would require going the long way about if you drove. It was originally a small rail line connecting, if I’m remembering the detail properly, the city morgue and one of the big cemeteries and used to move bodies…
I’m not aware of this trail – does it exist?
There used to be a London Necropolis Railway, running from Waterloo to Brookwood Cemetery about 30 miles away. And another dedicated rail service from Kings Cross about 8 miles north to New Southgate Cemetery.
There’s a story about a tunnel under Whitechapel Road, from Royal London Hospital to Whitechapel Station, once used for moving dead bodies. It might not be true.
What Janie said 9:52!
What Janie said 9:52!
This past week has been bleak. We have a very long way to go as a nation; and many, led by the President, who object to making that progress. Still, I think it’s important not to lose track of the fact that progress is being made, too slow as it may be.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/mit-black-woman-student-president-trnd/index.html
When I was in college (engineering, but UC Berkeley, not MIT) this wouldn’t have been so much unthinkable as unimaginable.
This past week has been bleak. We have a very long way to go as a nation; and many, led by the President, who object to making that progress. Still, I think it’s important not to lose track of the fact that progress is being made, too slow as it may be.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/mit-black-woman-student-president-trnd/index.html
When I was in college (engineering, but UC Berkeley, not MIT) this wouldn’t have been so much unthinkable as unimaginable.
wj @12:29 — I don’t follow MIT news much these days, so I missed that one. Cool!
wj @12:29 — I don’t follow MIT news much these days, so I missed that one. Cool!
Open thread? OK….for those of you with a contemplative bent.
Open thread? OK….for those of you with a contemplative bent.
I’m not aware of this trail – does it exist?
Got me. I’m not even sure now that I placed it in the right series. In addition to Alex Verus, over the last decade I’ve also read Aaronovitch’s Rivers of London series and Stross’s Laundry Files, some of which are set in London.
I’m not aware of this trail – does it exist?
Got me. I’m not even sure now that I placed it in the right series. In addition to Alex Verus, over the last decade I’ve also read Aaronovitch’s Rivers of London series and Stross’s Laundry Files, some of which are set in London.
To avoid thread-jacking, yet in the interest of testing our own assumptions and biases, I’m re-asking the questions below of Nous:
Yes, it’s relevant, because it fits in with the larger strategy of dismantling union protections.
But what about the problem of bad cops being protected by their unions–why isn’t that something the that only the right seems to be concerned with?
Any legislation that gets taken up in the name of police reform will target the privacy rights of public employee unions more broadly.
Which privacy rights in particular are taxpayer-funded employees owed that are (1) legitimate and (2) in danger? Because, ISTM, that public employees competence, attendance, work ethic, etc ought to be known to the taxpayers who are–not to put too fine a point on it–paying their salaries–why shouldn’t this be public record?
And this will mean that people like me will end up spending time fighting against the legislation when I’d rather be working to enact more restrictive and enforceable use-of-force guidelines that directly address the problem rather than hurting all unions for the sins of the police.
You can’t fight bad legislation and contend for good legislation at the same time?
To avoid thread-jacking, yet in the interest of testing our own assumptions and biases, I’m re-asking the questions below of Nous:
Yes, it’s relevant, because it fits in with the larger strategy of dismantling union protections.
But what about the problem of bad cops being protected by their unions–why isn’t that something the that only the right seems to be concerned with?
Any legislation that gets taken up in the name of police reform will target the privacy rights of public employee unions more broadly.
Which privacy rights in particular are taxpayer-funded employees owed that are (1) legitimate and (2) in danger? Because, ISTM, that public employees competence, attendance, work ethic, etc ought to be known to the taxpayers who are–not to put too fine a point on it–paying their salaries–why shouldn’t this be public record?
And this will mean that people like me will end up spending time fighting against the legislation when I’d rather be working to enact more restrictive and enforceable use-of-force guidelines that directly address the problem rather than hurting all unions for the sins of the police.
You can’t fight bad legislation and contend for good legislation at the same time?
It seems to me that we have two issues which need to be addressed simultaneously.
First, public employees are just that, public employees. And it is hard to justify concealing their performance records from their employers, i.e. all of us. Nobody who works in the private sector gets that kind of shield from their employer. And if you don’t want to have your performance and disciplinary records made public, well there’s always the private sector.
But second, there is a need in both the public and private sector for something resembling a union to act in support of the employees. One of the issues that the private sector has had these past few decades is that there is basically no feedback loop. If you have a safety problem that isn’t being addressed, if you have terrible first or second level manager, there is no effective way to get the attention of higher management to do something about it. (Whether they would is a different issue. If they are kept ignorant by the lower level managers, they simply cannot act.)
One of the reasons that unions have been losing influence over the past several decades is that the unions in the private sector in the middle of the last century had many of the problems that they public sector unions have now. Specifically, they made it difficult or impossible to deal with those who were really and inarguably failing to perform or causing problems. Their decline had unintended side effects, but the reason for that decline, and that it did not result in a public lashback, is that there was a real problem.
The public sector unions now face a similar situation. They can dig in their heels and fight any kind of change. In the short term, they may succeed. But in the medium (not eve long) term, that will result in severe restriction on them — likely starting with their right to strike**, but continuing on to even their right to exist. It really is a matter of reform or die. And the sooner they realize that, the better their chances to survive.
** Few things enrage (and that is not too strong a word) the public so much as having a bunch of people who we pay taxes to employ deciding to go on strike. Especially when they already have civil service protection, exclusive of whatever their union provides, far stronger than anything the rest of us get.
It seems to me that we have two issues which need to be addressed simultaneously.
First, public employees are just that, public employees. And it is hard to justify concealing their performance records from their employers, i.e. all of us. Nobody who works in the private sector gets that kind of shield from their employer. And if you don’t want to have your performance and disciplinary records made public, well there’s always the private sector.
But second, there is a need in both the public and private sector for something resembling a union to act in support of the employees. One of the issues that the private sector has had these past few decades is that there is basically no feedback loop. If you have a safety problem that isn’t being addressed, if you have terrible first or second level manager, there is no effective way to get the attention of higher management to do something about it. (Whether they would is a different issue. If they are kept ignorant by the lower level managers, they simply cannot act.)
One of the reasons that unions have been losing influence over the past several decades is that the unions in the private sector in the middle of the last century had many of the problems that they public sector unions have now. Specifically, they made it difficult or impossible to deal with those who were really and inarguably failing to perform or causing problems. Their decline had unintended side effects, but the reason for that decline, and that it did not result in a public lashback, is that there was a real problem.
The public sector unions now face a similar situation. They can dig in their heels and fight any kind of change. In the short term, they may succeed. But in the medium (not eve long) term, that will result in severe restriction on them — likely starting with their right to strike**, but continuing on to even their right to exist. It really is a matter of reform or die. And the sooner they realize that, the better their chances to survive.
** Few things enrage (and that is not too strong a word) the public so much as having a bunch of people who we pay taxes to employ deciding to go on strike. Especially when they already have civil service protection, exclusive of whatever their union provides, far stronger than anything the rest of us get.
Since we’re changing threads…
Public-sector unions have a conflict of interest that private-sector unions don’t. They and their members contribute to, campaign, and vote for their bosses. Or the people who pick their bosses.
Another reason for the decline of private-sector unions is that a lot of people don’t want to be in unions. Especially if they’re paying dues and don’t seem to be getting anything for them.
Since we’re changing threads…
Public-sector unions have a conflict of interest that private-sector unions don’t. They and their members contribute to, campaign, and vote for their bosses. Or the people who pick their bosses.
Another reason for the decline of private-sector unions is that a lot of people don’t want to be in unions. Especially if they’re paying dues and don’t seem to be getting anything for them.
And it is hard to justify concealing their performance records from their employers, i.e. all of us. Nobody who works in the private sector gets that kind of shield from their employer. And if you don’t want to have your performance and disciplinary records made public, well there’s always the private sector.
Public employees are not employed by everyone simply because their salaries ultimately come from tax revenue. They’re employer is whatever entity they work for, the name of which can likely be found on their paychecks. That’s a very loose way to use the word “employer” to get to a desired result.
The idea that all public employees should be subject to unrestricted public scrutiny of their work performance would only serve to – as you, yourself, argue, wj – send them to the private sector, where they would only be scrutinized by the people who actually employed them. That would leave the public sector at a severe disadvantage in attracting and retaining qualified and effective workers. Wouldn’t that be great?
Why shouldn’t private-sector workers be subject to the scrutiny of anyone who purchases the goods and services their employers provide? Who ultimately pays their salaries?
And it is hard to justify concealing their performance records from their employers, i.e. all of us. Nobody who works in the private sector gets that kind of shield from their employer. And if you don’t want to have your performance and disciplinary records made public, well there’s always the private sector.
Public employees are not employed by everyone simply because their salaries ultimately come from tax revenue. They’re employer is whatever entity they work for, the name of which can likely be found on their paychecks. That’s a very loose way to use the word “employer” to get to a desired result.
The idea that all public employees should be subject to unrestricted public scrutiny of their work performance would only serve to – as you, yourself, argue, wj – send them to the private sector, where they would only be scrutinized by the people who actually employed them. That would leave the public sector at a severe disadvantage in attracting and retaining qualified and effective workers. Wouldn’t that be great?
Why shouldn’t private-sector workers be subject to the scrutiny of anyone who purchases the goods and services their employers provide? Who ultimately pays their salaries?
they’re their there – all the same.
they’re their there – all the same.
It’s cute y’all think that I work for you, or that politicians are my bosses.
And congratulations, wj, on personally paying ≈0.00000002% of my wages and benefits (which is, incidentally about the same amount of my wages and benefits that I pay to myself through taxes – your contributions are noted and appreciated).
Gentlemen, good day.
It’s cute y’all think that I work for you, or that politicians are my bosses.
And congratulations, wj, on personally paying ≈0.00000002% of my wages and benefits (which is, incidentally about the same amount of my wages and benefits that I pay to myself through taxes – your contributions are noted and appreciated).
Gentlemen, good day.
So, I get to see all employee personnel reports for Boeing workers, supervisors, and upper management? After all, they are in receipt of a ton of public money (defense spending, subsidies, tax breaks, etc., etc.)….I hear tell it is “my” money, therefore “I” am “paying their salary”. Right?
What HSH said more better.
So, I get to see all employee personnel reports for Boeing workers, supervisors, and upper management? After all, they are in receipt of a ton of public money (defense spending, subsidies, tax breaks, etc., etc.)….I hear tell it is “my” money, therefore “I” am “paying their salary”. Right?
What HSH said more better.
Whst hsh said, kind of. Employment records for government employees are not generally available, while entities do provide varying access and privacy protections.
I suspect that disclosing this cops employment history was technically illegal. But these days we are all in on leaked information so no big deal.
Whst hsh said, kind of. Employment records for government employees are not generally available, while entities do provide varying access and privacy protections.
I suspect that disclosing this cops employment history was technically illegal. But these days we are all in on leaked information so no big deal.
Gentlemen, I take your point.
But allow me to suggest that your challenge isn’t to convince me. It is to convince the general public. Which sees (whether accurately or not) a bunch of folks with serious civil service protections against being fired without cause, which they do not have. And which sees (again, accurately or not) folks who have unions which routinely get them raises, while wages in general have been stagnant for decades. And which sees (quite accurately) those folks being protected from firing, or any real sanctions at all, even when there is amply cause.
You may well find that an enormously inaccurate picture. Or you may just think that the problem is the lack of equally powerful private sector unions. But the reality is, you are losing the argument. And unless you all come up with some serious, and highly visible, changes, you’re going to lose it all.
We will, God willing, get rid of Trump this year. But either the way public sector unions operates will change, or we will see some other demagogue come along and get elected on making them change.
Gentlemen, I take your point.
But allow me to suggest that your challenge isn’t to convince me. It is to convince the general public. Which sees (whether accurately or not) a bunch of folks with serious civil service protections against being fired without cause, which they do not have. And which sees (again, accurately or not) folks who have unions which routinely get them raises, while wages in general have been stagnant for decades. And which sees (quite accurately) those folks being protected from firing, or any real sanctions at all, even when there is amply cause.
You may well find that an enormously inaccurate picture. Or you may just think that the problem is the lack of equally powerful private sector unions. But the reality is, you are losing the argument. And unless you all come up with some serious, and highly visible, changes, you’re going to lose it all.
We will, God willing, get rid of Trump this year. But either the way public sector unions operates will change, or we will see some other demagogue come along and get elected on making them change.
The general public is stupid in at least one sense: it “sees (whether accurately or not)” what wj describes and does NOT demand the same deal from ITS bosses.
Reminds me of the joke about the Soviet commissar offering to reward a mother of several Red Army heroes with a favor of her choosing.
“Comrade,” the old woman says, “my neighbor has a goat. I don’t have a goat. Please, kill my neighbor’s goat.”
–TP
The general public is stupid in at least one sense: it “sees (whether accurately or not)” what wj describes and does NOT demand the same deal from ITS bosses.
Reminds me of the joke about the Soviet commissar offering to reward a mother of several Red Army heroes with a favor of her choosing.
“Comrade,” the old woman says, “my neighbor has a goat. I don’t have a goat. Please, kill my neighbor’s goat.”
–TP
Shifting topics, this pretty much summarizes the past 4 years:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/trump-wants-you-look-him/
Shifting topics, this pretty much summarizes the past 4 years:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/trump-wants-you-look-him/
wj,
The idea that unions declined because “they encouraged some of their members to get away with stuff” is remarkably incorrect….so wrong in its premises that I don’t even know where to start.
But let’s start small. The idea that police brutality is the outcome of their protected union status and contract bargaining and not actual public policy is also not well founded. Overfunding an overly militarized police has widespread bipartisan support. This results in public policies that give space to police unions to push their bargaining power….not, as you seem to believe, the other way around.
You want more? How about this? Qualified immunity did not arise out of the back rooms of labor management bargaining. It was a policy adopted by the Supreme Court, folks who, to the best of my knowledge, are not members of a union.
wj,
The idea that unions declined because “they encouraged some of their members to get away with stuff” is remarkably incorrect….so wrong in its premises that I don’t even know where to start.
But let’s start small. The idea that police brutality is the outcome of their protected union status and contract bargaining and not actual public policy is also not well founded. Overfunding an overly militarized police has widespread bipartisan support. This results in public policies that give space to police unions to push their bargaining power….not, as you seem to believe, the other way around.
You want more? How about this? Qualified immunity did not arise out of the back rooms of labor management bargaining. It was a policy adopted by the Supreme Court, folks who, to the best of my knowledge, are not members of a union.
we should probably just assume that Trump’s “Cops need to be tougher!” is a thought and attitude that came to Trump, and Trump only, and isn’t shared by actual cops anywhere in the US. and when actual cops hear his say stuff like this, they aren’t inspired to get “tougher”.
we should probably just assume that Trump’s “Cops need to be tougher!” is a thought and attitude that came to Trump, and Trump only, and isn’t shared by actual cops anywhere in the US. and when actual cops hear his say stuff like this, they aren’t inspired to get “tougher”.
oh look, voter fraud.
“big deal”, you say. “small potatoes!” “once a Democrat did … !”
well…
LOCK HIM UP! THROW HIM IN THE RIVER!
oh look, voter fraud.
“big deal”, you say. “small potatoes!” “once a Democrat did … !”
well…
LOCK HIM UP! THROW HIM IN THE RIVER!
The idea that police brutality is the outcome of their protected union status and contract bargaining and not actual public policy is also not well founded.
bobbyp, police brutality is the outcome of the personality (if that’s the right word) of the individual policemen involved. But the fact that those who engage in it remain policemen? Yeah, that derives, in significant part, from their union and its priorities. Reinforced, it is true, by the policies of those who, like Trump, want police to be brutal . . . at least as long as they and theirs are not the target.
Are police unions solely and completely responsible? Obviously not. (And if I gave the impression that I thought so, I apologize.) But do they contribute significantly to the problem? I think so.
The idea that police brutality is the outcome of their protected union status and contract bargaining and not actual public policy is also not well founded.
bobbyp, police brutality is the outcome of the personality (if that’s the right word) of the individual policemen involved. But the fact that those who engage in it remain policemen? Yeah, that derives, in significant part, from their union and its priorities. Reinforced, it is true, by the policies of those who, like Trump, want police to be brutal . . . at least as long as they and theirs are not the target.
Are police unions solely and completely responsible? Obviously not. (And if I gave the impression that I thought so, I apologize.) But do they contribute significantly to the problem? I think so.
But do they contribute significantly to the problem? I think so.
So do a lot of other people.
In 2012, Camden, NJ fired their whole police force and replaced them with a county-level non-union force.
“Police are public servants granted enormous power over the citizenry. They are tasked with protecting the public and serving their interests. Police unions, in contrast, are tasked with protecting police and serving their interests—even in direct contravention of serving the public. That distinction makes them a barrier to reforms aimed at improving public safety and increasing oversight of how law enforcement behaves. If union-busting is what it takes to reduce the pernicious influence of today’s police unions on policing, then it’s time to bust some police unions.”
It’s Time To Bust Police Unions: Over and over again, unions have defended bad policing and bad police. It’s time for them to go.
But do they contribute significantly to the problem? I think so.
So do a lot of other people.
In 2012, Camden, NJ fired their whole police force and replaced them with a county-level non-union force.
“Police are public servants granted enormous power over the citizenry. They are tasked with protecting the public and serving their interests. Police unions, in contrast, are tasked with protecting police and serving their interests—even in direct contravention of serving the public. That distinction makes them a barrier to reforms aimed at improving public safety and increasing oversight of how law enforcement behaves. If union-busting is what it takes to reduce the pernicious influence of today’s police unions on policing, then it’s time to bust some police unions.”
It’s Time To Bust Police Unions: Over and over again, unions have defended bad policing and bad police. It’s time for them to go.
This is where the US centric-ness of the list really hurts. When I first came to Japan, it was with a program that brought people from the UK, NZ and Australia. One of the vexing problems was how were the people who had come over to be represented. The group was largely white, largely male middle/upper class. Discussions about finding ways to represent us roughly like this
American: Dude, that really sounds like a union, that’s not a good thing
Australian: Look ya rat bag, we got to have a way to represent ourselves
Japanese ……..
Rinse and repeat. Unions arise in a context and making broad claims about what unions do or don’t make unions out to be something that operates in a vacuum. Of course, this makes it convenient, because you can blamt specific problems with police unions and avoid looking at systemic problems. Funny that….
This is where the US centric-ness of the list really hurts. When I first came to Japan, it was with a program that brought people from the UK, NZ and Australia. One of the vexing problems was how were the people who had come over to be represented. The group was largely white, largely male middle/upper class. Discussions about finding ways to represent us roughly like this
American: Dude, that really sounds like a union, that’s not a good thing
Australian: Look ya rat bag, we got to have a way to represent ourselves
Japanese ……..
Rinse and repeat. Unions arise in a context and making broad claims about what unions do or don’t make unions out to be something that operates in a vacuum. Of course, this makes it convenient, because you can blamt specific problems with police unions and avoid looking at systemic problems. Funny that….
It should be noted that “unions” and “systemic problems” are not conflicting explanations. There are definitely some synergies there.
It should be noted that “unions” and “systemic problems” are not conflicting explanations. There are definitely some synergies there.
“Public-sector unions have a conflict of interest that private-sector unions don’t. They and their members contribute to, campaign, and vote for their bosses.”
Well, good to hear that private-sector union members don’t have retirement plans that own part of their employer (stock), and vote in elections for their boards.
“Public-sector unions have a conflict of interest that private-sector unions don’t. They and their members contribute to, campaign, and vote for their bosses.”
Well, good to hear that private-sector union members don’t have retirement plans that own part of their employer (stock), and vote in elections for their boards.
Are firefighters’ unions a problem? Should firefighters have no recourse to collective bargaining? Are there racial disparities in how firefighters try to rescue people from fires?
Do we have black people fearful of calling the fire department?
It’s not unions, it’s the specific protections that police officers demand in their contracts that are then agreed to by the negotiators. And it’s the public’s willingness to take the police unions side in any public dispute as soon as they wave another officer’s funeral in peoples faces. And then propaganda pieces like Blue Bloods blow them all a big, wet, sloppy, mustachioed kiss once a week.
Teacher’s funerals don’t mean jack to people. And teachers don’t get Blue Bloods, they get Waiting for Superman. And lo and behold, they don’t get nearly the protections written into their contracts that the police do.
Who’da thunk it?
Are firefighters’ unions a problem? Should firefighters have no recourse to collective bargaining? Are there racial disparities in how firefighters try to rescue people from fires?
Do we have black people fearful of calling the fire department?
It’s not unions, it’s the specific protections that police officers demand in their contracts that are then agreed to by the negotiators. And it’s the public’s willingness to take the police unions side in any public dispute as soon as they wave another officer’s funeral in peoples faces. And then propaganda pieces like Blue Bloods blow them all a big, wet, sloppy, mustachioed kiss once a week.
Teacher’s funerals don’t mean jack to people. And teachers don’t get Blue Bloods, they get Waiting for Superman. And lo and behold, they don’t get nearly the protections written into their contracts that the police do.
Who’da thunk it?
But do they contribute significantly to the problem? I think so.
This emphasis is remarkably off base. I do not believe that you opine that, “Well, sure, get rid of police unions, problem solved!” If you do, our differences are profound.
Rampaging police operate in a public mileu that de jure and de facto allows and condones it. This behavior does NOT arise from the mere existence of a public sector bargaining relationship. You have cause and effect all backwards.
Thanks.
We hippies have been making this point since, like forever, but you know…..hippies.
But do they contribute significantly to the problem? I think so.
This emphasis is remarkably off base. I do not believe that you opine that, “Well, sure, get rid of police unions, problem solved!” If you do, our differences are profound.
Rampaging police operate in a public mileu that de jure and de facto allows and condones it. This behavior does NOT arise from the mere existence of a public sector bargaining relationship. You have cause and effect all backwards.
Thanks.
We hippies have been making this point since, like forever, but you know…..hippies.
And then propaganda pieces like Blue Bloods blow them all a big, wet, sloppy, mustachioed kiss once a week.
I was thinking yesterday that we could use a TV series where Internal Affairs are the heroes. There may be a real opportunity here for an Executive Producer with vision and courage. And an ability to spot a niche just waiting to be filled.
And then propaganda pieces like Blue Bloods blow them all a big, wet, sloppy, mustachioed kiss once a week.
I was thinking yesterday that we could use a TV series where Internal Affairs are the heroes. There may be a real opportunity here for an Executive Producer with vision and courage. And an ability to spot a niche just waiting to be filled.
We hippies have been making this point since, like forever, but you know…..hippies.
Why do I suspect that we’re all showing our age by even using the term? 😉
We hippies have been making this point since, like forever, but you know…..hippies.
Why do I suspect that we’re all showing our age by even using the term? 😉
It’s time for them to go.
As usual, charles drops by to leave us some glibertarian fact free excrement. It’s all about the glibertarian war on unions.
A more nuanced take on what went down in Camden can be found here. Please note, the Camden police department is once again unionized.
It’s time for them to go.
As usual, charles drops by to leave us some glibertarian fact free excrement. It’s all about the glibertarian war on unions.
A more nuanced take on what went down in Camden can be found here. Please note, the Camden police department is once again unionized.
Why do I suspect that we’re all showing our age by even using the term? 😉
True ‘dat, wj. I remember the good old days and our war against J. Edgar Hoover, a tyrant who makes the contrempts of the current manifestation of that institution pale by comparison (still bad, though).
Keep on truckin’
Why do I suspect that we’re all showing our age by even using the term? 😉
True ‘dat, wj. I remember the good old days and our war against J. Edgar Hoover, a tyrant who makes the contrempts of the current manifestation of that institution pale by comparison (still bad, though).
Keep on truckin’
Name that artist & song:
“I patrol the highways from the air
I keep the country safe from long hair
I am the masculine American Man
[song title is line]
I don’t like the Black Man
For he does not know his place
Take the back of my hand
Or I’ll spray you with my Mace”
It becomes less subtle from there.
Name that artist & song:
“I patrol the highways from the air
I keep the country safe from long hair
I am the masculine American Man
[song title is line]
I don’t like the Black Man
For he does not know his place
Take the back of my hand
Or I’ll spray you with my Mace”
It becomes less subtle from there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQBLBvi67fw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQBLBvi67fw
Unions arise in a context and making broad claims about what unions do or don’t make unions out to be something that operates in a vacuum.
There you have it.
Unions arise in a context and making broad claims about what unions do or don’t make unions out to be something that operates in a vacuum.
There you have it.
Priest: excellent. I’d never heard it before, only knew Pleasures of the Harbour, and that developed a skip in the vinyl so long ago as to be unplayable. Haven’t thought of it in years, and now there’s YouTube – great!
Priest: excellent. I’d never heard it before, only knew Pleasures of the Harbour, and that developed a skip in the vinyl so long ago as to be unplayable. Haven’t thought of it in years, and now there’s YouTube – great!
I didn’t know where to put this. Perhaps the thread explicitly about racism and the Floyd protests would have been better, but I think this could make a bigger point, and this is an open thread. We have discussed privilege in the past, and particularly white male privilege as I recall. When I saw the following tweet, by someone called Ahmed Ali, I thought of our discussion, and with the substitution of “racism and sexism” to this sentence, I really cannot think of a better encapsulation of the whole issue.
It’s a privilege to learn about
racism instead of experiencing
it your whole life.
I didn’t know where to put this. Perhaps the thread explicitly about racism and the Floyd protests would have been better, but I think this could make a bigger point, and this is an open thread. We have discussed privilege in the past, and particularly white male privilege as I recall. When I saw the following tweet, by someone called Ahmed Ali, I thought of our discussion, and with the substitution of “racism and sexism” to this sentence, I really cannot think of a better encapsulation of the whole issue.
It’s a privilege to learn about
racism instead of experiencing
it your whole life.
I was thinking yesterday that we could use a TV series where Internal Affairs are the heroes. There may be a real opportunity here for an Executive Producer with vision and courage. And an ability to spot a niche just waiting to be filled.
Try the British show ‘Line of Duty’. It is one of my favorites. I think available on Netflix – definitely Acorn if you stream. Right now it is on FX channel. Back to my usual lurking…
I was thinking yesterday that we could use a TV series where Internal Affairs are the heroes. There may be a real opportunity here for an Executive Producer with vision and courage. And an ability to spot a niche just waiting to be filled.
Try the British show ‘Line of Duty’. It is one of my favorites. I think available on Netflix – definitely Acorn if you stream. Right now it is on FX channel. Back to my usual lurking…
I thought I did the whole italics thing correctly but obviously not. Can someone fix for me please?
Fixed! – wj
Those slashes seem to be one of the key strokes the keyboards have the most trouble picking up. At least mind does.
I thought I did the whole italics thing correctly but obviously not. Can someone fix for me please?
Fixed! – wj
Those slashes seem to be one of the key strokes the keyboards have the most trouble picking up. At least mind does.
italiexo!
italiexo!
Meanwhile, we have this little problem: The next big problem for the economy: Businesses can’t pay their rent
Let us all celebrate McConnell’s decision to not even have the Senate consider the House-passed bill to provide support for city and state budgets.
/sarcasm
Meanwhile, we have this little problem: The next big problem for the economy: Businesses can’t pay their rent
Let us all celebrate McConnell’s decision to not even have the Senate consider the House-passed bill to provide support for city and state budgets.
/sarcasm
And then propaganda pieces like Blue Bloods blow them all a big, wet, sloppy, mustachioed kiss once a week.
I was thinking yesterday that we could use a TV series where Internal Affairs are the heroes.
Korean TV is pretty good in this respect.
The police are almost invariably portrayed as largely incompetent, rather than corrupt – something which is generally the province of the prosecutors/politicians.
I heartily recommend Punch, which is slightly bonkers (corrupt prosecutor discovers he has an incurable brain tumour and decides to clean shop before he dies), but brilliant.
And then propaganda pieces like Blue Bloods blow them all a big, wet, sloppy, mustachioed kiss once a week.
I was thinking yesterday that we could use a TV series where Internal Affairs are the heroes.
Korean TV is pretty good in this respect.
The police are almost invariably portrayed as largely incompetent, rather than corrupt – something which is generally the province of the prosecutors/politicians.
I heartily recommend Punch, which is slightly bonkers (corrupt prosecutor discovers he has an incurable brain tumour and decides to clean shop before he dies), but brilliant.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-04/james-mattis-s-rebuke-of-donald-trump-is-a-big-deal
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-04/james-mattis-s-rebuke-of-donald-trump-is-a-big-deal
don’t forget his long-time personal lawyer!
don’t forget his long-time personal lawyer!
Unions arise in a context and making broad claims about what unions do or don’t make unions out to be something that operates in a vacuum.
Here’s some context for you.
Unions arise in a context and making broad claims about what unions do or don’t make unions out to be something that operates in a vacuum.
Here’s some context for you.
This came up in my podcast queue and seemed apropos:
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-civilian-deaths
There may be some particular issues related to police unions that merit a serious look.
I’ll go back to my corner now.
This came up in my podcast queue and seemed apropos:
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-civilian-deaths
There may be some particular issues related to police unions that merit a serious look.
I’ll go back to my corner now.
Yes. Pollo de muerte, I’ve read the lit on this and listened to the discussions. I don’t doubt that police unions have been using their power to protect bad cops from the consequences of their actions.
But that is not a consequence of unionization. That is a consequence of politics and policy. The union aspect of it is just an insistence that due process is followed. What that process is depends entirely on bargaining and policy.
Anyone else here actually taken part in bargaining sessions? Anyone else here been a part of a disciplinary hearing?
Cops can be reformed without going after public employee unions as a whole, but that would spoil the plans of the anti-unionists who are trying to fork the problem.
Yes. Pollo de muerte, I’ve read the lit on this and listened to the discussions. I don’t doubt that police unions have been using their power to protect bad cops from the consequences of their actions.
But that is not a consequence of unionization. That is a consequence of politics and policy. The union aspect of it is just an insistence that due process is followed. What that process is depends entirely on bargaining and policy.
Anyone else here actually taken part in bargaining sessions? Anyone else here been a part of a disciplinary hearing?
Cops can be reformed without going after public employee unions as a whole, but that would spoil the plans of the anti-unionists who are trying to fork the problem.
More context for you. Those who keep returning to the “particular issues of police unions” continue to miss the forest for the trees.
Why not try this: “Particular issues of law enforcement“?
But you don’t. It’s always about unions.
What nous said.
Thank you.
More context for you. Those who keep returning to the “particular issues of police unions” continue to miss the forest for the trees.
Why not try this: “Particular issues of law enforcement“?
But you don’t. It’s always about unions.
What nous said.
Thank you.
nous, I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone here (OK, maybe Charles) has argued for going after public sector unions generally. I admit I’m not a fan, but that’s not quite the same thing.
You can say that the problem is politics and policy. But the policies you say the unions are just insisting on following are not just handed down from on high externally. They were negotiated for by those same unions.
And as for the politics, the problem thete is that public sector unions are allowed to engage in politics in the first place. Certainly the members have every right to do so. Both individually or via individual contributions to a PAC of their choice. But the union as an entity? No. Neither monetary contributions nor endorsements.
nous, I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone here (OK, maybe Charles) has argued for going after public sector unions generally. I admit I’m not a fan, but that’s not quite the same thing.
You can say that the problem is politics and policy. But the policies you say the unions are just insisting on following are not just handed down from on high externally. They were negotiated for by those same unions.
And as for the politics, the problem thete is that public sector unions are allowed to engage in politics in the first place. Certainly the members have every right to do so. Both individually or via individual contributions to a PAC of their choice. But the union as an entity? No. Neither monetary contributions nor endorsements.
bobbyp, no question the militarization of police forces is a problem. A serious one. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only one. I’d say it’s one of several, several of which are mutually reinforcing. Including, for example, military gear making knowledge/experience with said equipment a plus for applicants, which results in skewing the demographics of the police personnel, which influences the psychological profiles of the median policeman, etc.
bobbyp, no question the militarization of police forces is a problem. A serious one. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only one. I’d say it’s one of several, several of which are mutually reinforcing. Including, for example, military gear making knowledge/experience with said equipment a plus for applicants, which results in skewing the demographics of the police personnel, which influences the psychological profiles of the median policeman, etc.
So public sector unions should not be allowed to engage in politics because they are not individuals, but corporate contributions are just protected free speech…
But the right is not going after unions. Oh no. Don’t say that.
And yes, police forces are one of the few places that welcome someone with a military background and a combat infantry MOS. And there is something to be said for a candidate who has experience with operating under the effects of an adrenaline dump and experience with having been under fire. But there’s a lot of other training that runs at cross purposes, and there’s prior histories of PTSD to consider as well. Not that PTSD is a given for combat infantry, but if it is present, it can be a problem. And a lot of dubious training seminars about PTSD and combat stress got sold to US police forces during the cash cow days of the War on Terror. Suddenly every police force had money and wanted the same set of seminar clowns that had been entertaining the Operative community for all those years. Train with the guys who train the Elite!
Incidentally, a bunch of those guys that became instant consultants and SMEs in the aftermath of 9/11 slid into anti-muslim circles and NRA stuff right away. Suddenly I was seeing a bunch of guys whose names I knew as friends of my martial arts training circle showing up in the alt-right fringe and pushing Jade Helm conspiracy crap.
Know when police unions first became legal and started to gain power? 1964. Think that the problems with police violence might be a legacy of the Vietnam War that became the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror?
Nah. Gotta be unions.
So public sector unions should not be allowed to engage in politics because they are not individuals, but corporate contributions are just protected free speech…
But the right is not going after unions. Oh no. Don’t say that.
And yes, police forces are one of the few places that welcome someone with a military background and a combat infantry MOS. And there is something to be said for a candidate who has experience with operating under the effects of an adrenaline dump and experience with having been under fire. But there’s a lot of other training that runs at cross purposes, and there’s prior histories of PTSD to consider as well. Not that PTSD is a given for combat infantry, but if it is present, it can be a problem. And a lot of dubious training seminars about PTSD and combat stress got sold to US police forces during the cash cow days of the War on Terror. Suddenly every police force had money and wanted the same set of seminar clowns that had been entertaining the Operative community for all those years. Train with the guys who train the Elite!
Incidentally, a bunch of those guys that became instant consultants and SMEs in the aftermath of 9/11 slid into anti-muslim circles and NRA stuff right away. Suddenly I was seeing a bunch of guys whose names I knew as friends of my martial arts training circle showing up in the alt-right fringe and pushing Jade Helm conspiracy crap.
Know when police unions first became legal and started to gain power? 1964. Think that the problems with police violence might be a legacy of the Vietnam War that became the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror?
Nah. Gotta be unions.
So public sector unions should not be allowed to engage in politics because they are not individuals, but corporate contributions are just protected free speech…
Please believe that I consider the Citizens United decision one of the biggest pieces of bullsh*t to come out of the Supreme Court in the last 20 years. (Admittedly there’s some stiff competition.)
So public sector unions should not be allowed to engage in politics because they are not individuals, but corporate contributions are just protected free speech…
Please believe that I consider the Citizens United decision one of the biggest pieces of bullsh*t to come out of the Supreme Court in the last 20 years. (Admittedly there’s some stiff competition.)
I would hope so.
Never stops the astroturf oligarchs, though.
I would hope so.
Never stops the astroturf oligarchs, though.
If the Citizens United decision had gone the other way, it would also limit labor unions and other organizations along with corporations. But that may have been a trade-off you would prefer.
If the Citizens United decision had gone the other way, it would also limit labor unions and other organizations along with corporations. But that may have been a trade-off you would prefer.
The problem with Citizens United was not the decision in the narrow case at hand (in essence: despicable in content but legal due to 1st amendment) but the uncalled-for pulled-out-of-digestive-rear-exit expansion. I assume they considered to go all the way and make a distinction between unions (how dare they abuse their members’ money?) and corporations (who are people, my friends) but decided that that was a bridge to far (for the moment).
It was “the state had no right to confiscate your hunting rifle just because you are a nazi and a holocaust apologist and btw, the 2nd amendment covers nuclear artillery shells”
The problem with Citizens United was not the decision in the narrow case at hand (in essence: despicable in content but legal due to 1st amendment) but the uncalled-for pulled-out-of-digestive-rear-exit expansion. I assume they considered to go all the way and make a distinction between unions (how dare they abuse their members’ money?) and corporations (who are people, my friends) but decided that that was a bridge to far (for the moment).
It was “the state had no right to confiscate your hunting rifle just because you are a nazi and a holocaust apologist and btw, the 2nd amendment covers nuclear artillery shells”
FWIW, I hate Citizens United and I’m not attacking public unions generally (although being called an “astroturf oligarch” does lend an air of menacing gravitas that I don’t usually enjoy … note to self: grow a mustache so I have something to twirl and purchase a monocle).
nouse said: But that is not a consequence of unionization. That is a consequence of politics and policy. The union aspect of it is just an insistence that due process is followed. What that process is depends entirely on bargaining and policy.
I disagree where collective bargaining in the police union context warps due process (e.g., restricting the release of information regarding the cop but not the victim after a police shooting; getting the benefit of a cool-down period where the officers can coordinate their story before being interviewed/interrogated). IMO, this contributes to the real difficulty in prosecuting police for civilian deaths.
On the one hand, police unions are just negotiating to get the best deal for their client members and that’s a cornerstone of our adversarial legal system. The problem is that interests of civilians (especially at-risk civilians who are POC) are not being adequately represented. The podcast suggests that elected officials are generally more concerned with keeping taxes low and as a result, give in on these non-monetary demands as part of the horse trading to keep wages or benefits lower. That rings true to me based on my experience in similar negotiations.
In an economic sense, there are always externalities associated with collective bargaining (e.g., consumers pay higher prices for goods produced by unionized labor). But in the typical collective bargaining context, the market will correct for this and we can say that many of us gladly pay more for goods and services that are provided by fairly paid labor. Even in many public sector contexts, the impact on the public is acceptable (e.g., waiting longer at the DMV because the union negotiated longer/more frequent breaks).
My point is: Where we are dealing with the essential rights of victims of police violence, I don’t think we can hand wave the externalities away with “it’s just bargaining and policy”. The collective bargaining process appears to consistently warp due process in nontrivial and bad ways. Will the current outrage adequately impact our current collective bargaining paradigm or do we need to consider having a civilian representative at the table (I’m thinking of utility rate hearings where the public is represented by the state’s AG office).
TLDR: Essential rights of civilians who are victims of police violence are compromised by police union collective bargaining to an unacceptable degree.
FWIW, I hate Citizens United and I’m not attacking public unions generally (although being called an “astroturf oligarch” does lend an air of menacing gravitas that I don’t usually enjoy … note to self: grow a mustache so I have something to twirl and purchase a monocle).
nouse said: But that is not a consequence of unionization. That is a consequence of politics and policy. The union aspect of it is just an insistence that due process is followed. What that process is depends entirely on bargaining and policy.
I disagree where collective bargaining in the police union context warps due process (e.g., restricting the release of information regarding the cop but not the victim after a police shooting; getting the benefit of a cool-down period where the officers can coordinate their story before being interviewed/interrogated). IMO, this contributes to the real difficulty in prosecuting police for civilian deaths.
On the one hand, police unions are just negotiating to get the best deal for their client members and that’s a cornerstone of our adversarial legal system. The problem is that interests of civilians (especially at-risk civilians who are POC) are not being adequately represented. The podcast suggests that elected officials are generally more concerned with keeping taxes low and as a result, give in on these non-monetary demands as part of the horse trading to keep wages or benefits lower. That rings true to me based on my experience in similar negotiations.
In an economic sense, there are always externalities associated with collective bargaining (e.g., consumers pay higher prices for goods produced by unionized labor). But in the typical collective bargaining context, the market will correct for this and we can say that many of us gladly pay more for goods and services that are provided by fairly paid labor. Even in many public sector contexts, the impact on the public is acceptable (e.g., waiting longer at the DMV because the union negotiated longer/more frequent breaks).
My point is: Where we are dealing with the essential rights of victims of police violence, I don’t think we can hand wave the externalities away with “it’s just bargaining and policy”. The collective bargaining process appears to consistently warp due process in nontrivial and bad ways. Will the current outrage adequately impact our current collective bargaining paradigm or do we need to consider having a civilian representative at the table (I’m thinking of utility rate hearings where the public is represented by the state’s AG office).
TLDR: Essential rights of civilians who are victims of police violence are compromised by police union collective bargaining to an unacceptable degree.
I don’t think that collective bargaining per se is the problem, though I can quite understand why anyone might believe that to be the case…
http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/publications/briefings/2006/0611/index.html
What is lacking is the political will to put constraints on what is and what isn’t negotiable.
I don’t think that collective bargaining per se is the problem, though I can quite understand why anyone might believe that to be the case…
http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/publications/briefings/2006/0611/index.html
What is lacking is the political will to put constraints on what is and what isn’t negotiable.
What is lacking is the political will to put constraints on what is and what isn’t negotiable.
Yes. It takes two to bargain, my friend.
What is lacking is the political will to put constraints on what is and what isn’t negotiable.
Yes. It takes two to bargain, my friend.
FWIW, I hate Citizens United and I’m not attacking public unions generally (although being called an “astroturf oligarch” does lend an air of menacing gravitas that I don’t usually enjoy … note to self: grow a mustache so I have something to twirl and purchase a monocle).
Confirmed: Pollo de muerte is a sock puppet of Charles Koch. You heard it here first. We got The Family on the run now, kids.
Union bargained privacy in disciplinary matters doesn’t come into play until after a long chain of bad policy and bad precedent.
https://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/15-use-of-force-cases-every-cop-needs-to-know-NLoZ7wBxeBxkIHly/
Add to that Hudson v. Michigan, which was mentioned in the Radley Balko article mentione in the Lawyers Guns, and Money post that bobbyp linked to above.
That’s 16 cases that help indemnify cops that have been militarized and incentivized by the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.
But it’s the union coming in at the tail end of all of this and insisting that management not fire someone who has been exonerated by this bad system that is the problem.
FWIW, I hate Citizens United and I’m not attacking public unions generally (although being called an “astroturf oligarch” does lend an air of menacing gravitas that I don’t usually enjoy … note to self: grow a mustache so I have something to twirl and purchase a monocle).
Confirmed: Pollo de muerte is a sock puppet of Charles Koch. You heard it here first. We got The Family on the run now, kids.
Union bargained privacy in disciplinary matters doesn’t come into play until after a long chain of bad policy and bad precedent.
https://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/15-use-of-force-cases-every-cop-needs-to-know-NLoZ7wBxeBxkIHly/
Add to that Hudson v. Michigan, which was mentioned in the Radley Balko article mentione in the Lawyers Guns, and Money post that bobbyp linked to above.
That’s 16 cases that help indemnify cops that have been militarized and incentivized by the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.
But it’s the union coming in at the tail end of all of this and insisting that management not fire someone who has been exonerated by this bad system that is the problem.
don’t forget his long-time personal lawyer!
Rudy.
From “America’s mayor” to spittle-flecked clown-@ss nutjob. Mad as a damned hatter. If he was a dog, you’d take him out back and shoot him.
Hope he got a good payday out of it.
I keep trying to think of constructive things to say. And I keep on coming up empty.
Shit’s fucked up and bullshit, and it is not going to stop until all of the folks who think people like Trump and Rudy are the good guys wise the hell up.
These people are dangerous maniacs. All of them. The ones that aren’t get moved out, or leave on their own. The ones that stick around are the worst, just horrible human beings. Vicious, corrupt, dangerous maniacs.
I don’t know what to say about the people who support them. The thought process there is beyond my ken.
don’t forget his long-time personal lawyer!
Rudy.
From “America’s mayor” to spittle-flecked clown-@ss nutjob. Mad as a damned hatter. If he was a dog, you’d take him out back and shoot him.
Hope he got a good payday out of it.
I keep trying to think of constructive things to say. And I keep on coming up empty.
Shit’s fucked up and bullshit, and it is not going to stop until all of the folks who think people like Trump and Rudy are the good guys wise the hell up.
These people are dangerous maniacs. All of them. The ones that aren’t get moved out, or leave on their own. The ones that stick around are the worst, just horrible human beings. Vicious, corrupt, dangerous maniacs.
I don’t know what to say about the people who support them. The thought process there is beyond my ken.
If cops were not allowed to unionize, would they be less racist? less power-drunk? less idolized by authoritarian power-drunk racists?
If police chiefs, from Jerkwater AL to Chicago IL, had no unions to contend with, would they start replacing the racist and the power-drunk in their forces with Sheriff Andy Taylor types? Would they fire over-aggressive cops, or hire more of them, in the name of “law and order”?
Unionization is a red herring. Bad policing in America is a cultural problem, not a labor relations problem.
–TP
If cops were not allowed to unionize, would they be less racist? less power-drunk? less idolized by authoritarian power-drunk racists?
If police chiefs, from Jerkwater AL to Chicago IL, had no unions to contend with, would they start replacing the racist and the power-drunk in their forces with Sheriff Andy Taylor types? Would they fire over-aggressive cops, or hire more of them, in the name of “law and order”?
Unionization is a red herring. Bad policing in America is a cultural problem, not a labor relations problem.
–TP
and oh yeah, unions.
Professional police forces start showing up in US cities in the mid 19th C. There may have been one or two earlier than that.
The first union-ish police thing was probably the Police Benevolent Association, which began in the early 20th C. Police unions, per se, probably begin around the mid 20th C.
Is anyone under the impression that police behavior was transparent and accountable before the emergence of police unions? Like, for 100 years, there were no patterns of cops being more or less above the law?
Maybe there’s a chicken-and-egg thing here.
Unions exist because, absent unions, working people have little to no voice in the conditions they work under, and / or in the governance of the organizations they work for.
If you don’t like unions, fix that, and the motivation for specifically labor-focused organizations will go away.
and oh yeah, unions.
Professional police forces start showing up in US cities in the mid 19th C. There may have been one or two earlier than that.
The first union-ish police thing was probably the Police Benevolent Association, which began in the early 20th C. Police unions, per se, probably begin around the mid 20th C.
Is anyone under the impression that police behavior was transparent and accountable before the emergence of police unions? Like, for 100 years, there were no patterns of cops being more or less above the law?
Maybe there’s a chicken-and-egg thing here.
Unions exist because, absent unions, working people have little to no voice in the conditions they work under, and / or in the governance of the organizations they work for.
If you don’t like unions, fix that, and the motivation for specifically labor-focused organizations will go away.
nous said: But it’s the union coming in at the tail end of all of this and insisting that management not fire someone who has been exonerated by this bad system that is the problem.
The data show that unionization of police started in the late 50s and early 60s and an uptick in civilian killing started as the same time. The war on drugs and militarization of the the police was much later and is neither the chicken or the egg. I’ll quote the npr podcast:
I’m probably less pro-union and more union-sympathetic. I understand that if you are pro-union and have been dealing with the erosion of collective bargaining rights and a constant onslaught from the right that it’s natural to assume a defensive crouch whenever any union activity is criticized, but I think this knee jerk reaction is not serving labor well here.
You don’t have to be a nutball right winger to see that police unions present a special case where the essential rights (and lives) of third parties have not been accounted for in the collective bargaining process.
nous said: But it’s the union coming in at the tail end of all of this and insisting that management not fire someone who has been exonerated by this bad system that is the problem.
The data show that unionization of police started in the late 50s and early 60s and an uptick in civilian killing started as the same time. The war on drugs and militarization of the the police was much later and is neither the chicken or the egg. I’ll quote the npr podcast:
I’m probably less pro-union and more union-sympathetic. I understand that if you are pro-union and have been dealing with the erosion of collective bargaining rights and a constant onslaught from the right that it’s natural to assume a defensive crouch whenever any union activity is criticized, but I think this knee jerk reaction is not serving labor well here.
You don’t have to be a nutball right winger to see that police unions present a special case where the essential rights (and lives) of third parties have not been accounted for in the collective bargaining process.
russell: I don’t know what to say about the people who support them.
I do.
What befuddles me is how to persuade their neighbors, friends, and relatives to treat them as moral lepers.
–TP
russell: I don’t know what to say about the people who support them.
I do.
What befuddles me is how to persuade their neighbors, friends, and relatives to treat them as moral lepers.
–TP
Taking off in a different direction.
I had somehow missed the detail that Trump has felt it necessary to erect a 10 foot high reinforced metal fence around the White House. In effect, making the building into one large bunker to cower in.
I see a real campaign opportunity here. Picture Joe Biden, standing next to it, saying: “Mr Trump, tear down this wall!”
Taking off in a different direction.
I had somehow missed the detail that Trump has felt it necessary to erect a 10 foot high reinforced metal fence around the White House. In effect, making the building into one large bunker to cower in.
I see a real campaign opportunity here. Picture Joe Biden, standing next to it, saying: “Mr Trump, tear down this wall!”
Or a parody of this classic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z39mHqn487w
Or a parody of this classic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z39mHqn487w
I totally agree that police unions present a special case. 100% on board. My union has come out against the MPU and there are people in the AFL-CIO discussing whether it’s appropriate to allow police unions to be part of the federation. And if police unions were to strike over this stuff, I would not give them a moment of solidarity, any more than they used their power to protect teachers in Wisconsin when the GOP came after the schools.
But the conversation about what to do keeps coming back to attacks on collective bargaining for public employee unions, and I see the same crap trotted out against police unions that was trotted out in Waiting for Superman about the horrible, no good, very bad teachers that the unions have protected.
Fix the disciplinary process. Fix the laws that give too much power and protection to cops. And quit recycling the same arguments that were used to go after teachers and air traffic controllers as a run up to going after the *special case* that is the cops.
It’s always a *special case* but the answer somehow always stays the same, and always lumps the other unions into the argument.
So identify the specific policies and practices and procedures that make the police distinct and go after those things specifically in a way that does not put every union on the hook and we can talk.
I totally agree that police unions present a special case. 100% on board. My union has come out against the MPU and there are people in the AFL-CIO discussing whether it’s appropriate to allow police unions to be part of the federation. And if police unions were to strike over this stuff, I would not give them a moment of solidarity, any more than they used their power to protect teachers in Wisconsin when the GOP came after the schools.
But the conversation about what to do keeps coming back to attacks on collective bargaining for public employee unions, and I see the same crap trotted out against police unions that was trotted out in Waiting for Superman about the horrible, no good, very bad teachers that the unions have protected.
Fix the disciplinary process. Fix the laws that give too much power and protection to cops. And quit recycling the same arguments that were used to go after teachers and air traffic controllers as a run up to going after the *special case* that is the cops.
It’s always a *special case* but the answer somehow always stays the same, and always lumps the other unions into the argument.
So identify the specific policies and practices and procedures that make the police distinct and go after those things specifically in a way that does not put every union on the hook and we can talk.
“Mr Trump, tear down this wall!”
and in retaliation, the city of DC is painting BLACK LIVES MATTER down the middle of the 16th street behind the White House.
“Mr Trump, tear down this wall!”
and in retaliation, the city of DC is painting BLACK LIVES MATTER down the middle of the 16th street behind the White House.
well fuuuuuuudge.
Narrator: except he didn’t say “fudge”
wj: fixed it (I think). But it took me two tries.
well fuuuuuuudge.
Narrator: except he didn’t say “fudge”
wj: fixed it (I think). But it took me two tries.
That’s one impressive painting.
That’s one impressive painting.
even better:
WaPo:
even better:
WaPo:
I pretty much agree with nous on this, so this isn’t meant to be a diversion, but a problem with police (that is felt even more acutely with firefighters) is that they have a relatively limited career on the front line, so a system of work has to be created that they can move to. This makes their union a lot more intrasigent because the demographic profile of the work (younger basically doing all the hard work and older moving to a desk) has them demand their rights as retirement. In other jobs, a person growing older can more easily move, they are not locked into that particular job. But for police and firefighters, there isn’t really a lot of movement. Police can move to a suburb as sort of a horizontal transfer. FIrefighters can’t find a job in small town because those places tend to have volunteer firefighters.
I pretty much agree with nous on this, so this isn’t meant to be a diversion, but a problem with police (that is felt even more acutely with firefighters) is that they have a relatively limited career on the front line, so a system of work has to be created that they can move to. This makes their union a lot more intrasigent because the demographic profile of the work (younger basically doing all the hard work and older moving to a desk) has them demand their rights as retirement. In other jobs, a person growing older can more easily move, they are not locked into that particular job. But for police and firefighters, there isn’t really a lot of movement. Police can move to a suburb as sort of a horizontal transfer. FIrefighters can’t find a job in small town because those places tend to have volunteer firefighters.
The data show that unionization of police started in the late 50s and early 60s and an uptick in civilian killing started as the same time.
pollo, thanks for bringing this into the discussion. can you point us to the source for this? This is not a “where’s your link?!?” challenge, I’m just interested in getting more information. I want to understand what’s going on.
Thank you!
The data show that unionization of police started in the late 50s and early 60s and an uptick in civilian killing started as the same time.
pollo, thanks for bringing this into the discussion. can you point us to the source for this? This is not a “where’s your link?!?” challenge, I’m just interested in getting more information. I want to understand what’s going on.
Thank you!
A brief laundry list of policies to reform police conduct are found here.
You will notice that “reforming” the collective bargaining process for police is just one small part.
As it should be.
A brief laundry list of policies to reform police conduct are found here.
You will notice that “reforming” the collective bargaining process for police is just one small part.
As it should be.
here ya’ go, russell:
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-civilian-deaths
here ya’ go, russell:
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/869176943/police-unions-and-civilian-deaths
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/6/6/1950841/-They-wanted-her-to-flinch-beg-to-break-as-they-used-police-batons-on-her-She-would-not
Any police union reform initiated by the fascist American conservative right, otherwise known as the Republican Party under Trump’s heel, is NOT predicated on reducing violence against the citizenry, but rather to strip public sector employees of all healthcare, retirement, and workplace safety benefits and to convert police forces into low-paid, low-benefit armed militias to serve as paramilitary enforcers and protectors of trump conservative movement goals, and includes all elected republicans officials across the nation.
That so many of the constabulary will acquiesce to the crypto-Christian fascist cult on those terms is now beyond cautionary, it is a Bolsonarian, Stalinist, Orbanian.
Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, United States of America: “I didn’t know where I was going.”
Nuremberg-worthy pleading.
He could have served just as well in Gary “What’s Aleppo?” Johnson’s hapless, dumbass administration.
Which way to the Front?
Is Esper fit to know where Trump’s “big” nuclear button is at any moment.
We are in grave danger.
Some of those anonymous armed militias blocking the Lincoln Monument spoke Russian to demonstrators, according to witnesses, who have since disappeared.
Trust no conservatives. We don’t know who they are.
I now push my own personal mute button to silence once again.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/6/6/1950841/-They-wanted-her-to-flinch-beg-to-break-as-they-used-police-batons-on-her-She-would-not
Any police union reform initiated by the fascist American conservative right, otherwise known as the Republican Party under Trump’s heel, is NOT predicated on reducing violence against the citizenry, but rather to strip public sector employees of all healthcare, retirement, and workplace safety benefits and to convert police forces into low-paid, low-benefit armed militias to serve as paramilitary enforcers and protectors of trump conservative movement goals, and includes all elected republicans officials across the nation.
That so many of the constabulary will acquiesce to the crypto-Christian fascist cult on those terms is now beyond cautionary, it is a Bolsonarian, Stalinist, Orbanian.
Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, United States of America: “I didn’t know where I was going.”
Nuremberg-worthy pleading.
He could have served just as well in Gary “What’s Aleppo?” Johnson’s hapless, dumbass administration.
Which way to the Front?
Is Esper fit to know where Trump’s “big” nuclear button is at any moment.
We are in grave danger.
Some of those anonymous armed militias blocking the Lincoln Monument spoke Russian to demonstrators, according to witnesses, who have since disappeared.
Trust no conservatives. We don’t know who they are.
I now push my own personal mute button to silence once again.
Another rant on this topic, and a good one at that, is found here.
Carry on.
Another rant on this topic, and a good one at that, is found here.
Carry on.
oh good. we’ve entered the “both parties are equally terrible” phase of the election.
oh good. we’ve entered the “both parties are equally terrible” phase of the election.
One can understand the attraction of “both parties are equally terrible.” It allows the speaker to evade any responsibility for failing to oppose the unarguably worse candidate when they are in office and creating one disaster after another.
The defining characteristic of an adult is responsibility. The “both parties are equally terrible” folks demonstrably are not.
One can understand the attraction of “both parties are equally terrible.” It allows the speaker to evade any responsibility for failing to oppose the unarguably worse candidate when they are in office and creating one disaster after another.
The defining characteristic of an adult is responsibility. The “both parties are equally terrible” folks demonstrably are not.
“Both parties are equally terrible”
Since that wasn’t said in the link, what we have actually entered is the phase where any criticism of Democrats is seen as saying that “ both parties are equally terrible”. We have been there for 20 years. We also have the people who say both parties are equally terrible and people in- between.
When I am Larping as a responsible adult, I criticize bad policies and the politicians which support them , which often includes Democrats, while also acknowledging that Republicans are worse than Democrats and so, in discussions of who to vote for, one votes lesser evil. When angry, I just cuss at everyone.
One can understand the appeal of talking constantly in terms of which party is worse as it allows the speaker to evade any responsibility for the mistakes and crimes committed by the lesser evil, so that one never has to confront issues where American society as a whole, or at least both political parties, might be at fault.
The defining characteristic of an adult is responsibility. The people who respond in kneejerk fashion to criticism of both parties demonstrably are not.
Oh, hell, make it easier. Agree with me on everything I think is important, or you are just a toddler. I will be generous and allow some minor disagreements here and there, but don’t make me have to pull this blog over.
“Both parties are equally terrible”
Since that wasn’t said in the link, what we have actually entered is the phase where any criticism of Democrats is seen as saying that “ both parties are equally terrible”. We have been there for 20 years. We also have the people who say both parties are equally terrible and people in- between.
When I am Larping as a responsible adult, I criticize bad policies and the politicians which support them , which often includes Democrats, while also acknowledging that Republicans are worse than Democrats and so, in discussions of who to vote for, one votes lesser evil. When angry, I just cuss at everyone.
One can understand the appeal of talking constantly in terms of which party is worse as it allows the speaker to evade any responsibility for the mistakes and crimes committed by the lesser evil, so that one never has to confront issues where American society as a whole, or at least both political parties, might be at fault.
The defining characteristic of an adult is responsibility. The people who respond in kneejerk fashion to criticism of both parties demonstrably are not.
Oh, hell, make it easier. Agree with me on everything I think is important, or you are just a toddler. I will be generous and allow some minor disagreements here and there, but don’t make me have to pull this blog over.
Btw, recently some people here liked the Applebaum article below.
I didn’t. It mixed legitimate criticism of Trump with her own notions of what US foreign policy should be like. She praised people like Romney, who was pro- waterboarding.
https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2020/06/01/history-will-judge-the-complicit/
I liked this one better. He criticizes a Trump and explains where Trump is a step backwards, but he doesn’t sugarcoat what came before Trump.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/06/01/moving-backward-hypocrisy-and-human-rights/
Btw, recently some people here liked the Applebaum article below.
I didn’t. It mixed legitimate criticism of Trump with her own notions of what US foreign policy should be like. She praised people like Romney, who was pro- waterboarding.
https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2020/06/01/history-will-judge-the-complicit/
I liked this one better. He criticizes a Trump and explains where Trump is a step backwards, but he doesn’t sugarcoat what came before Trump.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/06/01/moving-backward-hypocrisy-and-human-rights/
I will be generous and allow some minor disagreements here and there, but don’t make me have to pull this blog over.
LOL
I will be generous and allow some minor disagreements here and there, but don’t make me have to pull this blog over.
LOL
Donald, I liked the Applebaum piece. I find the question of who collaborates, and who doesn’t when the chips are down, extremely interesting, and I always have. And what the last straw is that breaks the camel’s back for those who don’t – in fact the whole mechanism of collaboration is fascinating.
And Romney, despite his many worrying (or downright reprehensible) attitudes, was right and brave to vote for impeachment, just as McCain (who I am certain you disapproved of despite his opposition to torture) was right to put his thumb down on the ACA vote.
FWIW, and in case I haven’t made it clear in the past, I do not think that criticising the Dems means one thinks both parties are equally terrible. And I completely respect and agree with your point of view when you say:
I criticize bad policies and the politicians which support them , which often includes Democrats, while also acknowledging that Republicans are worse than Democrats and so, in discussions of who to vote for, one votes lesser evil.
Donald, I liked the Applebaum piece. I find the question of who collaborates, and who doesn’t when the chips are down, extremely interesting, and I always have. And what the last straw is that breaks the camel’s back for those who don’t – in fact the whole mechanism of collaboration is fascinating.
And Romney, despite his many worrying (or downright reprehensible) attitudes, was right and brave to vote for impeachment, just as McCain (who I am certain you disapproved of despite his opposition to torture) was right to put his thumb down on the ACA vote.
FWIW, and in case I haven’t made it clear in the past, I do not think that criticising the Dems means one thinks both parties are equally terrible. And I completely respect and agree with your point of view when you say:
I criticize bad policies and the politicians which support them , which often includes Democrats, while also acknowledging that Republicans are worse than Democrats and so, in discussions of who to vote for, one votes lesser evil.
I forget where I saw this (with all the news/commentary about police issues, it’s hard to keep track), but there was something mentioned that police had to have some sort of ‘certification’ to be employed.
Something like ‘graduated police academy’, or the like.
And the idea that bad cops should have their certification pulled, so that they couldn’t just relocate to a new area.
It also seems (to me) that whatever organization issues certifications isn’t part of the typical “local government/police union” bargaining, and so has the power to tell the back cops to just fuck right off.
(Like Bar Associations or Medical licensing boards, perhaps? Far from perfect, I know, but we are so far from perfect that you can’t really see it from here.)
I forget where I saw this (with all the news/commentary about police issues, it’s hard to keep track), but there was something mentioned that police had to have some sort of ‘certification’ to be employed.
Something like ‘graduated police academy’, or the like.
And the idea that bad cops should have their certification pulled, so that they couldn’t just relocate to a new area.
It also seems (to me) that whatever organization issues certifications isn’t part of the typical “local government/police union” bargaining, and so has the power to tell the back cops to just fuck right off.
(Like Bar Associations or Medical licensing boards, perhaps? Far from perfect, I know, but we are so far from perfect that you can’t really see it from here.)
s/back cops/bad cops/
s/back cops/bad cops/
On the other hand a ‘not qualified’ from the American Bar Association is currently a prerequisite for getting a judicial nomination from this administration.
On the other hand a ‘not qualified’ from the American Bar Association is currently a prerequisite for getting a judicial nomination from this administration.
Since that wasn’t said in the link…
maybe it wasn’t explicit enough for you. i got the message loud and clear.
Since that wasn’t said in the link…
maybe it wasn’t explicit enough for you. i got the message loud and clear.
i got the message loud and clear.
Apparently, Bill de Blasio hasn’t.
i got the message loud and clear.
Apparently, Bill de Blasio hasn’t.
i suspect few will disagree when i say that BdBis kind of a doofus.
i suspect few will disagree when i say that BdBis kind of a doofus.
“ maybe it wasn’t explicit enough for you. i got the message loud and clear.”
Because you filter for that message. I am trying to think of an appropriate electronics analogy, but am failing.
Lots of people do this on both sides, but there really is a way of saying “ I hate what many Democrats are doing on issues X and Y, but Republicans are worse.” Many of us say it and mean it. Now often people who say it are very angry about the issue— in this case, police thuggishness—and when angry it can be difficult to say “Nonetheless, the Republicans are worse”. Some people can’t do it. Then they vote third party or not at all.
Wj thinks that is childish. I think it depends. I am a comfortable middle class person ( for now— a deprsssion could eventually change that)— and so when people say I take no risk in voting third party it hits home and I vote lesser evil. But I can well imagine that someone who was suffering no matter which party was in power might not find that argument quite so compelling. It might still be morally right, the responsible thing to do. But it might be a good idea t actually listen to people when they are outraged and not simply rely on the old standby of vote shaming.
And anyway, as I was saying by stealing wj’s words, the responsible adult argument cuts both ways and so does the moral argument. If people aren’t willing to listen to angry criticisms of Democrats when they are in the wrong, as they sometimes are, then they aren’t the right people to be talking about lesser evil voting because they have no credibility.
Gftnc—. The Applebaum article was correct in pointing out that Trump supporters are selling their souls, But she was also making a case for what she considers to be a virtuous foreign policy. I don’t want to go back through the article, but it was self congratulatory Beltway stuff. I was not moved by McCain’s funeral and who showed up. I want Trump out, but a lot of those people are horrible. So I supplied the Danner link. I even think that was a little too kind to US foreign policy pre-Trump, but he knows where some of the literal bodies are buried and as he mentions, his first book was about where 900 of them were put in the ground.
“ maybe it wasn’t explicit enough for you. i got the message loud and clear.”
Because you filter for that message. I am trying to think of an appropriate electronics analogy, but am failing.
Lots of people do this on both sides, but there really is a way of saying “ I hate what many Democrats are doing on issues X and Y, but Republicans are worse.” Many of us say it and mean it. Now often people who say it are very angry about the issue— in this case, police thuggishness—and when angry it can be difficult to say “Nonetheless, the Republicans are worse”. Some people can’t do it. Then they vote third party or not at all.
Wj thinks that is childish. I think it depends. I am a comfortable middle class person ( for now— a deprsssion could eventually change that)— and so when people say I take no risk in voting third party it hits home and I vote lesser evil. But I can well imagine that someone who was suffering no matter which party was in power might not find that argument quite so compelling. It might still be morally right, the responsible thing to do. But it might be a good idea t actually listen to people when they are outraged and not simply rely on the old standby of vote shaming.
And anyway, as I was saying by stealing wj’s words, the responsible adult argument cuts both ways and so does the moral argument. If people aren’t willing to listen to angry criticisms of Democrats when they are in the wrong, as they sometimes are, then they aren’t the right people to be talking about lesser evil voting because they have no credibility.
Gftnc—. The Applebaum article was correct in pointing out that Trump supporters are selling their souls, But she was also making a case for what she considers to be a virtuous foreign policy. I don’t want to go back through the article, but it was self congratulatory Beltway stuff. I was not moved by McCain’s funeral and who showed up. I want Trump out, but a lot of those people are horrible. So I supplied the Danner link. I even think that was a little too kind to US foreign policy pre-Trump, but he knows where some of the literal bodies are buried and as he mentions, his first book was about where 900 of them were put in the ground.
If people aren’t willing to listen to angry criticisms of Democrats when they are in the wrong, as they sometimes are, then they aren’t the right people to be talking about lesser evil voting because they have no credibility.
the Republicans are running things right now.
criticizing the Dems for what’s happening now would be merely silly if it didn’t run the risk of turning even more people into “they all sucks” drones.
but, you’ve heard all this before, i’m sure.
If people aren’t willing to listen to angry criticisms of Democrats when they are in the wrong, as they sometimes are, then they aren’t the right people to be talking about lesser evil voting because they have no credibility.
the Republicans are running things right now.
criticizing the Dems for what’s happening now would be merely silly if it didn’t run the risk of turning even more people into “they all sucks” drones.
but, you’ve heard all this before, i’m sure.
And anyway, as I was saying by stealing wj’s words, the responsible adult argument cuts both ways and so does the moral argument. If people aren’t willing to listen to angry criticisms of Democrats when they are in the wrong, as they sometimes are, then they aren’t the right people to be talking about lesser evil voting because they have no credibility.
Precisely Dr. Ed’s point, I believe. And your words above seem reasonable enough, and so does the first para of Donald’s (god bless him) reply. Burmila’s squib was certainly not an example of the “both parties are equally terrible” point of view, and anybody with a passing familiarity with his output would know this. He does not, from what I gather, take kindly to 3rd party vanity voting.
As to what constitutes “adult responsibility”, well, opinions vary (I’ve heard). wj, for example, has no problem voting for down ballot “good” Republicans, a position I find to be politically naive as it lends support to a political institution that has no redeeming virtue.
I also agree with your take on the Applebaum piece, good as it was….so I will have to go back and read your Danner link. Thanks.
And anyway, as I was saying by stealing wj’s words, the responsible adult argument cuts both ways and so does the moral argument. If people aren’t willing to listen to angry criticisms of Democrats when they are in the wrong, as they sometimes are, then they aren’t the right people to be talking about lesser evil voting because they have no credibility.
Precisely Dr. Ed’s point, I believe. And your words above seem reasonable enough, and so does the first para of Donald’s (god bless him) reply. Burmila’s squib was certainly not an example of the “both parties are equally terrible” point of view, and anybody with a passing familiarity with his output would know this. He does not, from what I gather, take kindly to 3rd party vanity voting.
As to what constitutes “adult responsibility”, well, opinions vary (I’ve heard). wj, for example, has no problem voting for down ballot “good” Republicans, a position I find to be politically naive as it lends support to a political institution that has no redeeming virtue.
I also agree with your take on the Applebaum piece, good as it was….so I will have to go back and read your Danner link. Thanks.
But it might be a good idea t actually listen to people when they are outraged and not simply rely on the old standby of vote shaming.
The thing is, as a fairly comfortable middle class straight white male, I am myself fairly outraged. Does that count? Or does the fact that I am, relatively speaking, financially and socially secure make my voice less relevant?
The dilemma I see is that the people who are “suffering no matter which party is in power” are not interested in the kinds of changes that would alleviate their suffering. Apparently, that all looks like socialism to them. Whatever that word means, in their minds.
So they make choices that appear, to me, to be more than foolish.
Is that “vote shaming”? Or is that just a reasonable analysis of the facts?
I do listen to the things that people who suffer no matter which party is on top have to say. I understand that they are outraged. I am more than interested in making changes that will make their lives better, and I don’t really care if all of those changes are things that I personally think are the best idea.
I listen, but what I hear doesn’t make sense. Am I being some kind of smarmy elitist if I say that the things that people think, believe, and say are not sensible? They aren’t rooted in an accurate understanding of history, or of our institutions as a nation, or even simply of fact?
Isn’t it freaking patronizing if I *do not* call out the ways in which that stuff doesn’t make sense? Isn’t it condescending to say, yes, you’re making bad choices, but I see that you are angry and outraged, so I won’t challenge you on any of that?
If I look at the history of this country for the 63 years I’ve been here, I see that American politics is pretty screwed up, American foreign policy is pretty screwed up, the American economy is robust as hell but is pretty screwed up. I see all of that.
But I also see that, in fact, the (R)’s are worse. Not just a matter of degree, but in their fundamental understanding of the world and in their basic orientation toward public life. They’re worse. The (D)’s are weak beer, are often kind of patronizing, and as an institution are often self-serving. But the (R)’s, certainly from Nixon on, are actually bad. Bad policies, frequently bad people. Harmful, destructive of public life and institutions, motivated by anti-social and toxic ideologies.
Bad.
The both-sides thing is harmful, because it tries to draw comparisons between things that are not alike.
But it might be a good idea t actually listen to people when they are outraged and not simply rely on the old standby of vote shaming.
The thing is, as a fairly comfortable middle class straight white male, I am myself fairly outraged. Does that count? Or does the fact that I am, relatively speaking, financially and socially secure make my voice less relevant?
The dilemma I see is that the people who are “suffering no matter which party is in power” are not interested in the kinds of changes that would alleviate their suffering. Apparently, that all looks like socialism to them. Whatever that word means, in their minds.
So they make choices that appear, to me, to be more than foolish.
Is that “vote shaming”? Or is that just a reasonable analysis of the facts?
I do listen to the things that people who suffer no matter which party is on top have to say. I understand that they are outraged. I am more than interested in making changes that will make their lives better, and I don’t really care if all of those changes are things that I personally think are the best idea.
I listen, but what I hear doesn’t make sense. Am I being some kind of smarmy elitist if I say that the things that people think, believe, and say are not sensible? They aren’t rooted in an accurate understanding of history, or of our institutions as a nation, or even simply of fact?
Isn’t it freaking patronizing if I *do not* call out the ways in which that stuff doesn’t make sense? Isn’t it condescending to say, yes, you’re making bad choices, but I see that you are angry and outraged, so I won’t challenge you on any of that?
If I look at the history of this country for the 63 years I’ve been here, I see that American politics is pretty screwed up, American foreign policy is pretty screwed up, the American economy is robust as hell but is pretty screwed up. I see all of that.
But I also see that, in fact, the (R)’s are worse. Not just a matter of degree, but in their fundamental understanding of the world and in their basic orientation toward public life. They’re worse. The (D)’s are weak beer, are often kind of patronizing, and as an institution are often self-serving. But the (R)’s, certainly from Nixon on, are actually bad. Bad policies, frequently bad people. Harmful, destructive of public life and institutions, motivated by anti-social and toxic ideologies.
Bad.
The both-sides thing is harmful, because it tries to draw comparisons between things that are not alike.
Burmila’s squib was certainly not an example of the “both parties are equally terrible” point of view,
he wrote this:
so.. um..
the choice, everywhere in the US is going to be Dem vs GOP. GOP gets you people like Trump celebrating police brutality and aggression.
Dem gets you people like Hank Johnson, who, in February, sponsored a bill to prohibit the transfer of military weapons and equipment that are unnecessary and inappropriate for local police needs.
seems simple to me.
Burmila’s squib was certainly not an example of the “both parties are equally terrible” point of view,
he wrote this:
so.. um..
the choice, everywhere in the US is going to be Dem vs GOP. GOP gets you people like Trump celebrating police brutality and aggression.
Dem gets you people like Hank Johnson, who, in February, sponsored a bill to prohibit the transfer of military weapons and equipment that are unnecessary and inappropriate for local police needs.
seems simple to me.
I am trying to think of an appropriate electronics analogy, but am failing.
A band-pass filter?
I am trying to think of an appropriate electronics analogy, but am failing.
A band-pass filter?
I am trying to think of an appropriate electronics analogy, but am failing.
A band-pass filter?
I am trying to think of an appropriate electronics analogy, but am failing.
A band-pass filter?
I’m going to have to un-social-distancing myself to an electronics store and get a new mouse…
I’m going to have to un-social-distancing myself to an electronics store and get a new mouse…
so.. um..
Really? So, basically any criticism of Dems is, by definition, illegitimate….especially from somebody like myself who has voted straight Dem ticket (yes, even the bad ones in the general) for 40+ years, and is active in the party? (LOL…bit of reverse shaming on my part…apologies).
A center Dem LOST in 2016. Black turnout went DOWN. Does this not tell you something?
Rep. Hank’s bill is fine. I’m all for it. How about bills for reparations? Good schools? Jobs? Safe communities? Real police reform. How about pouring substantial funds and efforts into the inner cities and the black rural south?
We seem to have a substantial disagreement on what constitutes “deliver”, and Burmila’s point was spot on. At some point, your audience is going to stop paying attention.
We can do this. We can have good things. We can do better. Seems simple to me, too.
Thanks.
so.. um..
Really? So, basically any criticism of Dems is, by definition, illegitimate….especially from somebody like myself who has voted straight Dem ticket (yes, even the bad ones in the general) for 40+ years, and is active in the party? (LOL…bit of reverse shaming on my part…apologies).
A center Dem LOST in 2016. Black turnout went DOWN. Does this not tell you something?
Rep. Hank’s bill is fine. I’m all for it. How about bills for reparations? Good schools? Jobs? Safe communities? Real police reform. How about pouring substantial funds and efforts into the inner cities and the black rural south?
We seem to have a substantial disagreement on what constitutes “deliver”, and Burmila’s point was spot on. At some point, your audience is going to stop paying attention.
We can do this. We can have good things. We can do better. Seems simple to me, too.
Thanks.
well done, Mitt Romney.
How about bills for reparations? Good schools? Jobs? Safe communities? Real police reform. How about pouring substantial funds and efforts into the inner cities and the black rural south?
do you want me to look up bills?
well done, Mitt Romney.
How about bills for reparations? Good schools? Jobs? Safe communities? Real police reform. How about pouring substantial funds and efforts into the inner cities and the black rural south?
do you want me to look up bills?
Bad.
Yup.
Bad.
Yup.
“ The dilemma I see is that the people who are “suffering no matter which party is in power” are not interested in the kinds of changes that would alleviate their suffering. Apparently, that all looks like socialism to them. ”
I actually wasn’t thinking of poor whites who sometimes vote Republican, but people of all colors who don’t bother to vote because they don’t think it matters. Given the low number of people who vote, this probably describes a fair number of people, some of whom might have reasons to be bitter.
There was a NYT piece on black nonvoters immediately after Trump’s victory where they expressed that view, but my impression is that this attitude has been around forever.
The endless battles that go on between lefties who vote third party and those who don’t probably aren’t very relevant offline. It’s probably just a small percentage of people who could recite them by heart.
CharlesWT— I thought of bandpass filter. It might work, you filter out the frequencies/ arguments to your left and right. Far left and right would be low pass and high pass, though people woukd have to agree on which side gets the low or high frequency assigned to it.
Too much explaining to make the analogy funny. Needs work.
“ The dilemma I see is that the people who are “suffering no matter which party is in power” are not interested in the kinds of changes that would alleviate their suffering. Apparently, that all looks like socialism to them. ”
I actually wasn’t thinking of poor whites who sometimes vote Republican, but people of all colors who don’t bother to vote because they don’t think it matters. Given the low number of people who vote, this probably describes a fair number of people, some of whom might have reasons to be bitter.
There was a NYT piece on black nonvoters immediately after Trump’s victory where they expressed that view, but my impression is that this attitude has been around forever.
The endless battles that go on between lefties who vote third party and those who don’t probably aren’t very relevant offline. It’s probably just a small percentage of people who could recite them by heart.
CharlesWT— I thought of bandpass filter. It might work, you filter out the frequencies/ arguments to your left and right. Far left and right would be low pass and high pass, though people woukd have to agree on which side gets the low or high frequency assigned to it.
Too much explaining to make the analogy funny. Needs work.
“ The endless battles that go on between lefties who …”
I take that back. A fair number of lefties despise Biden. But the online shouting probably isn’t relevant.
“ The endless battles that go on between lefties who …”
I take that back. A fair number of lefties despise Biden. But the online shouting probably isn’t relevant.
do you want me to look up bills?
No need. But if you are satisfied with where we are, we are not seeing the same picture.
The black community suffers from a dearth of good paying jobs. CREATE THEM.
The black community suffers from housing discrimination and crappy dilapidated schools. BUILD IT.
The black community has repeatedly been robbed of what little wealth they have been able to eke out. CORRECT THIS WRONG. WE CAN AFFORD IT.
I could go on. Hopefully you get the point.
Thanks.
do you want me to look up bills?
No need. But if you are satisfied with where we are, we are not seeing the same picture.
The black community suffers from a dearth of good paying jobs. CREATE THEM.
The black community suffers from housing discrimination and crappy dilapidated schools. BUILD IT.
The black community has repeatedly been robbed of what little wealth they have been able to eke out. CORRECT THIS WRONG. WE CAN AFFORD IT.
I could go on. Hopefully you get the point.
Thanks.
I actually wasn’t thinking of poor whites who sometimes vote Republican, but people of all colors who don’t bother to vote because they don’t think it matters.
A very good point.
I’d be hard pressed to persuade them otherwise, not because I don’t think it actually matters, but because I am not them.
I personally live in a very fortunate bubble. How to engage in ways that are actually constructive takes up a lot of my mental space lately.
Still trying to figure it out.
Meanwhile, this seems large.
I actually wasn’t thinking of poor whites who sometimes vote Republican, but people of all colors who don’t bother to vote because they don’t think it matters.
A very good point.
I’d be hard pressed to persuade them otherwise, not because I don’t think it actually matters, but because I am not them.
I personally live in a very fortunate bubble. How to engage in ways that are actually constructive takes up a lot of my mental space lately.
Still trying to figure it out.
Meanwhile, this seems large.
Isn’t it freaking patronizing if I *do not* call out the ways in which that stuff doesn’t make sense? Isn’t it condescending to say, yes, you’re making bad choices, but I see that you are angry and outraged, so I won’t challenge you on any of that?
I’ve been thinking of this in a separate context and it is a dilemma. Let’s take a problem, like a meeting where men talk too much and women don’t get a word in. Then who brings the complaint? Does a man, which then has other men argue against him? Or does a woman and she gets told that see, you can speak up so you just hae to be stronger. It may even be that the women get mad at the man for suggesting that they aren’t strong enough to speak up on their own.
Donald could (very accurately) say well people getting blown up by drones don’t even have a place at the table, so the analogy is not at all apt. But the question I’m thinking is how do people _at_ the table (or at least at this table) who feel like Donald make the point without falling into this fork.
What prompts this is Drew Bree’s (NO Saints Quarterback) wife’s Brittany Brees (horrifically sexist description, but I think some people here wouldn’t recognize the name so that’s the description that gives information in a way to easily understand it) post on Instagram.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2895100-drew-brees-wife-brittany-says-we-are-the-problem-on-ig-post-about-protests
WE ARE THE PROBLEM . I write this with tears in my eyes and I hope you all hear our hearts. I have read these quotes and scripture 1000 times and every time I read it and the words sink into my heart. I think yes this is what it’s all about…Only until the last few days, until we experienced the death threats we experienced the hate… Did I realize that these words were speaking directly to us.. how could anyone who knows us or has had interactions with us think that Drew or I have a racist bone in our body? But that’s the whole point . Somehow we as white America, we can feel good about not being racist, feel good about loving one an another as God loves us. We can feel good about educating our children about the horrors of slavery and history. We can read books to our children about Martin Luther King, Malcolm X., Hank Aaron, Barack Obama, Rosa parks, Harriet Tubman.. and feel like we are doing our part to raise our children to love , be unbiased and with no prejudice. To teach them about all of the African Americans that have fought for and risked their lives against racial injustice. Somehow as white Americans we feel like that checks the box of doing the right thing. Not until this week did Drew and I realize THAT THIS IS THE PROBLEM.”
Now, the instagram post has these quotes
2 by MLK
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
and
Not only will we have to repent for the sins of bad people; but we will have to repent for the appalling silence of the good people.
and this bible verse
the LORD has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you
I put that up for completeness, not because I want to figure out exactly what Britanny Brees is thinking. This is more about trying to figure out what I (and not any of you) are thinking.
So yes, it is ‘condescending’ and ‘patronizing’ if you don’t call out and don’t raise your voice. But it ends up being that way if you do. I’m sure some could argue that raising your voice against a wrong is correct because the statement itself has some truth value and it doesn’t matter who says it. But on the other hand, if the raising of your voice ingrains the very thing you are trying to eliminate what does that mean?
Just to restate, I’m not calling anyone out with this, just trying to figure this out.
Isn’t it freaking patronizing if I *do not* call out the ways in which that stuff doesn’t make sense? Isn’t it condescending to say, yes, you’re making bad choices, but I see that you are angry and outraged, so I won’t challenge you on any of that?
I’ve been thinking of this in a separate context and it is a dilemma. Let’s take a problem, like a meeting where men talk too much and women don’t get a word in. Then who brings the complaint? Does a man, which then has other men argue against him? Or does a woman and she gets told that see, you can speak up so you just hae to be stronger. It may even be that the women get mad at the man for suggesting that they aren’t strong enough to speak up on their own.
Donald could (very accurately) say well people getting blown up by drones don’t even have a place at the table, so the analogy is not at all apt. But the question I’m thinking is how do people _at_ the table (or at least at this table) who feel like Donald make the point without falling into this fork.
What prompts this is Drew Bree’s (NO Saints Quarterback) wife’s Brittany Brees (horrifically sexist description, but I think some people here wouldn’t recognize the name so that’s the description that gives information in a way to easily understand it) post on Instagram.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2895100-drew-brees-wife-brittany-says-we-are-the-problem-on-ig-post-about-protests
WE ARE THE PROBLEM . I write this with tears in my eyes and I hope you all hear our hearts. I have read these quotes and scripture 1000 times and every time I read it and the words sink into my heart. I think yes this is what it’s all about…Only until the last few days, until we experienced the death threats we experienced the hate… Did I realize that these words were speaking directly to us.. how could anyone who knows us or has had interactions with us think that Drew or I have a racist bone in our body? But that’s the whole point . Somehow we as white America, we can feel good about not being racist, feel good about loving one an another as God loves us. We can feel good about educating our children about the horrors of slavery and history. We can read books to our children about Martin Luther King, Malcolm X., Hank Aaron, Barack Obama, Rosa parks, Harriet Tubman.. and feel like we are doing our part to raise our children to love , be unbiased and with no prejudice. To teach them about all of the African Americans that have fought for and risked their lives against racial injustice. Somehow as white Americans we feel like that checks the box of doing the right thing. Not until this week did Drew and I realize THAT THIS IS THE PROBLEM.”
Now, the instagram post has these quotes
2 by MLK
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
and
Not only will we have to repent for the sins of bad people; but we will have to repent for the appalling silence of the good people.
and this bible verse
the LORD has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you
I put that up for completeness, not because I want to figure out exactly what Britanny Brees is thinking. This is more about trying to figure out what I (and not any of you) are thinking.
So yes, it is ‘condescending’ and ‘patronizing’ if you don’t call out and don’t raise your voice. But it ends up being that way if you do. I’m sure some could argue that raising your voice against a wrong is correct because the statement itself has some truth value and it doesn’t matter who says it. But on the other hand, if the raising of your voice ingrains the very thing you are trying to eliminate what does that mean?
Just to restate, I’m not calling anyone out with this, just trying to figure this out.
well done, Mitt Romney.
Yup. Newsflash: very few people are all good, or all bad. And plenty of valuable journalism, ditto. I’m thinking of the Applebaum piece again, of course. There is an important place for nuance, and granular analysis of policies and prior attitudes, but when push comes to shove the current GOP is in the hands of people who have embraced open villainy, and they must be ousted. As for “the silence of our friends”, FWIW I too am currently grappling with how not to be among that silent number.
well done, Mitt Romney.
Yup. Newsflash: very few people are all good, or all bad. And plenty of valuable journalism, ditto. I’m thinking of the Applebaum piece again, of course. There is an important place for nuance, and granular analysis of policies and prior attitudes, but when push comes to shove the current GOP is in the hands of people who have embraced open villainy, and they must be ousted. As for “the silence of our friends”, FWIW I too am currently grappling with how not to be among that silent number.
I meant to say earlier— this bid to completely eliminate police blindsided me. I read a lot of far left stuff, but had totally missed this idea. Defunding them, meaning cutting funding— I get that. Put the money into other things. But you are still going to have violent people ( wjho aren’t cops) and what do you do about them? More social workers and programs and fewer cops is good, but no cops at all has me puzzled. Gotta read about this somewhere.
I meant to say earlier— this bid to completely eliminate police blindsided me. I read a lot of far left stuff, but had totally missed this idea. Defunding them, meaning cutting funding— I get that. Put the money into other things. But you are still going to have violent people ( wjho aren’t cops) and what do you do about them? More social workers and programs and fewer cops is good, but no cops at all has me puzzled. Gotta read about this somewhere.
And a tangential point but since LJ brought up drones— sapient has occasionally said people stopped talking about drones once Obama left. I think I stopped before, because Yemen was a bigger bloodier issue. Eventually, post Khashoggi, virtually all Democrats and some Republicans turned against the Yemen War, though not Trump. It is now his war.
But also, there is the Airwars site which I might link in a minute and a NYT expose which showed that US air strikes in general were killing far more civilians than our government admitted. This was true under Obama but became much worse under Trump because he removed some of the already loose restrictions.
But I rarely saw that listed as one of Trump’s big crimes and my theory about that is this— you can’t criticize an American President for air strikes that kill civilians without implicitly or explicitly criticizing the military which carried them out and which claimed the civilian death toll was much lower than independent reporters found. Trump can’t do everything himself. It implies that it something deeper is wrong than just Trump. Plus the military is ( like cops are for some) a sacred cow.
And a tangential point but since LJ brought up drones— sapient has occasionally said people stopped talking about drones once Obama left. I think I stopped before, because Yemen was a bigger bloodier issue. Eventually, post Khashoggi, virtually all Democrats and some Republicans turned against the Yemen War, though not Trump. It is now his war.
But also, there is the Airwars site which I might link in a minute and a NYT expose which showed that US air strikes in general were killing far more civilians than our government admitted. This was true under Obama but became much worse under Trump because he removed some of the already loose restrictions.
But I rarely saw that listed as one of Trump’s big crimes and my theory about that is this— you can’t criticize an American President for air strikes that kill civilians without implicitly or explicitly criticizing the military which carried them out and which claimed the civilian death toll was much lower than independent reporters found. Trump can’t do everything himself. It implies that it something deeper is wrong than just Trump. Plus the military is ( like cops are for some) a sacred cow.
https://airwars.org/conflict/coalition-in-iraq-and-syria/
Scroll down a bit. You will see a graph showing a large increase in deaths in Trump’ first year.
I will look for the NYT piece in a minute.
https://airwars.org/conflict/coalition-in-iraq-and-syria/
Scroll down a bit. You will see a graph showing a large increase in deaths in Trump’ first year.
I will look for the NYT piece in a minute.
I do get where Donald is coming from here, and I also grok the fear that this sort of thing provokes in centrists. One of my FB friends goes on and on about how Hillary Clinton was the single most qualified candidate we have had for the presidency and how Sanders and his supporters betrayed everyone and doomed us all to Trump.
Truth be told, I can’t stand either of the Clintons, though I did vote for Hillary. I just re-watched 13th and I still get mad every time I hear them spouting the old Law and Order campaign schtick. And I don’t believe either one of them when they say that they had to say those things to get elected. They have always been hawks, and they have always stood more strongly for the use of force than was required for triangulation.
I also just watched a bunch of Rage Against the Machine videos, and found it hard to watch the video for “Testify” because of how it presented Bush and Gore as functionally interchangeable. And I can see in their presentation a lot of the same misapplied anger that we see in Sanders supporters. We would absolutely been better off with Gore in the White House during 9/11 than we were with Bush.
Perhaps what we need are for the moderate Democrat voices to be raised more strongly for the principles to the left of their own centers and for the leftist voices to be raised in favor of the principles that are within the values of the moderates but which are not yet quite practical? That would move the Overton Window the right direction, as opposed to the Clinton style evacuation of the left in favor of the near right.
I do get where Donald is coming from here, and I also grok the fear that this sort of thing provokes in centrists. One of my FB friends goes on and on about how Hillary Clinton was the single most qualified candidate we have had for the presidency and how Sanders and his supporters betrayed everyone and doomed us all to Trump.
Truth be told, I can’t stand either of the Clintons, though I did vote for Hillary. I just re-watched 13th and I still get mad every time I hear them spouting the old Law and Order campaign schtick. And I don’t believe either one of them when they say that they had to say those things to get elected. They have always been hawks, and they have always stood more strongly for the use of force than was required for triangulation.
I also just watched a bunch of Rage Against the Machine videos, and found it hard to watch the video for “Testify” because of how it presented Bush and Gore as functionally interchangeable. And I can see in their presentation a lot of the same misapplied anger that we see in Sanders supporters. We would absolutely been better off with Gore in the White House during 9/11 than we were with Bush.
Perhaps what we need are for the moderate Democrat voices to be raised more strongly for the principles to the left of their own centers and for the leftist voices to be raised in favor of the principles that are within the values of the moderates but which are not yet quite practical? That would move the Overton Window the right direction, as opposed to the Clinton style evacuation of the left in favor of the near right.
Nyt justifies its existence sometimes
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/16/magazine/uncounted-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes.html
Anyway, going back to lurking mode.
Nyt justifies its existence sometimes
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/16/magazine/uncounted-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes.html
Anyway, going back to lurking mode.
“ but when push comes to shove the current GOP is in the hands of people who have embraced open villain”
Okay, I will lurk in a second, but waterboarding is open villainy. We used to talk about torture as an utter disgrace. I bet we talked about fascism and used Nazi analogies, disgrace to everything we stand for, etc…
Romney was pro torture.
Pretty sure I remember that.
“ but when push comes to shove the current GOP is in the hands of people who have embraced open villain”
Okay, I will lurk in a second, but waterboarding is open villainy. We used to talk about torture as an utter disgrace. I bet we talked about fascism and used Nazi analogies, disgrace to everything we stand for, etc…
Romney was pro torture.
Pretty sure I remember that.
Sorry, pretty sure I remember what we said back then. I know Romney was pro torture. I googled that the other day.
Now
Sorry, pretty sure I remember what we said back then. I know Romney was pro torture. I googled that the other day.
Now
But you are still going to have violent people ( wjho aren’t cops) and what do you do about them?
It’s been my observation (going back a lot of years) that the people who argue for totally eliminating the police have managed to convince themselves that all violence in society is due to “those people”. Except for them, “those people” consist of the police. Actually, pretty much anybody in authority, but especially the police.
So they would reject the basic idea that you would still have violent people. Think of it as the far left version of alternative facts.
But you are still going to have violent people ( wjho aren’t cops) and what do you do about them?
It’s been my observation (going back a lot of years) that the people who argue for totally eliminating the police have managed to convince themselves that all violence in society is due to “those people”. Except for them, “those people” consist of the police. Actually, pretty much anybody in authority, but especially the police.
So they would reject the basic idea that you would still have violent people. Think of it as the far left version of alternative facts.
Trump’s worse crimes are on Twitter, not in Yemen…
Trump’s worse crimes are on Twitter, not in Yemen…
Crap, I can’t shut up. I am trying for my own sanity to cut way way back on posting. But
“ Perhaps what we need are for the moderate Democrat voices to be raised more strongly for the principles to the left of their own centers and for the leftist voices to be raised in favor of the principles that are within the values of the moderates but which are not yet quite practical? ”
I think this would help. Some people on the far left won’t vote for centrist libs, period, but if people really mean to be pragmatic then everyone would be trying to reach other people where they are, to the extent they can without chucking their principles. Instead, online at least, there is mostly this poisonous shouting that goes on between various factions. I only vote Democratic because I actually accept the lesser evil logic and as a currently comfortable armchair leftist can’t justify purity voting, but I loathe hearing the sermonizing from Democrats who make no effort to hear anything we say when we criticize Democrats. What it tells me is that their “ think of the people you hurt when you play purity politics” is a moral principle that only goes one way.
Though again, I am not sure how much of these online arguments that have been going on for twenty years effects election votes. It might just be a small number of people. Getting poor people to vote and persuading them it matters is probably about 59 times more important.
Crap, I can’t shut up. I am trying for my own sanity to cut way way back on posting. But
“ Perhaps what we need are for the moderate Democrat voices to be raised more strongly for the principles to the left of their own centers and for the leftist voices to be raised in favor of the principles that are within the values of the moderates but which are not yet quite practical? ”
I think this would help. Some people on the far left won’t vote for centrist libs, period, but if people really mean to be pragmatic then everyone would be trying to reach other people where they are, to the extent they can without chucking their principles. Instead, online at least, there is mostly this poisonous shouting that goes on between various factions. I only vote Democratic because I actually accept the lesser evil logic and as a currently comfortable armchair leftist can’t justify purity voting, but I loathe hearing the sermonizing from Democrats who make no effort to hear anything we say when we criticize Democrats. What it tells me is that their “ think of the people you hurt when you play purity politics” is a moral principle that only goes one way.
Though again, I am not sure how much of these online arguments that have been going on for twenty years effects election votes. It might just be a small number of people. Getting poor people to vote and persuading them it matters is probably about 59 times more important.
Also, I think it is worth chasing down some of the readings from the Abolish side of criminal justice studies. I’m not saying that I agree or support the abolition of police, but I think that there are a lot of very good re-examinations of public safety models and discussions of goals and costs and strategies.
It’s not all crazy and parts are not that radical, either. And I think the conversation is necessary and that alternatives are important for change. Reform is not working because the model of policing itself is bad.
Also, I think it is worth chasing down some of the readings from the Abolish side of criminal justice studies. I’m not saying that I agree or support the abolition of police, but I think that there are a lot of very good re-examinations of public safety models and discussions of goals and costs and strategies.
It’s not all crazy and parts are not that radical, either. And I think the conversation is necessary and that alternatives are important for change. Reform is not working because the model of policing itself is bad.
Look, you want to serious cut down on drone strikes? It’s EASY: just do some drone strikes on
gun showsterrorist arms depots.Want to put torture back in the “never NEVER even THINK of doing that!1!!”? Easy: just waterboard Terry Nichols (OKC bomber, convicted of domestic terrorism, in custody in a SuperMax prison) to find out his un-named co-conspirators, then continue until you roll up the entire network, no matter where it leads.
Yeah, seriously ugly stuff, that takes far more fortitude than is on offer. But so was “crushing Nazis” in 1941-5.
Look, you want to serious cut down on drone strikes? It’s EASY: just do some drone strikes on
gun showsterrorist arms depots.Want to put torture back in the “never NEVER even THINK of doing that!1!!”? Easy: just waterboard Terry Nichols (OKC bomber, convicted of domestic terrorism, in custody in a SuperMax prison) to find out his un-named co-conspirators, then continue until you roll up the entire network, no matter where it leads.
Yeah, seriously ugly stuff, that takes far more fortitude than is on offer. But so was “crushing Nazis” in 1941-5.
Though again, I am not sure how much of these online arguments that have been going on for twenty years effects election votes. It might just be a small number of people.
I suspect you are on to something there, Donald.
Though again, I am not sure how much of these online arguments that have been going on for twenty years effects election votes. It might just be a small number of people.
I suspect you are on to something there, Donald.
So: Romney was wrong (and morally repugnant) to support torture, and right (and morally superior to every other senator of his party) to vote against Trump in the impeachment, and now for marching in the Floyd protests. These values can actually co-exist in one person. The world is complicated. The current Trumpian GOP delenda est.
So: Romney was wrong (and morally repugnant) to support torture, and right (and morally superior to every other senator of his party) to vote against Trump in the impeachment, and now for marching in the Floyd protests. These values can actually co-exist in one person. The world is complicated. The current Trumpian GOP delenda est.
Getting poor people to vote and persuading them it matters is probably about 59 times more important.
I’d strike “poor people” and substitute “everyone”, but otherwise 100% on board with this.
But you are still going to have violent people ( wjho aren’t cops) and what do you do about them?
I guess the city of Minneapolis is going to find out.
We’ll see what happens.
Getting poor people to vote and persuading them it matters is probably about 59 times more important.
I’d strike “poor people” and substitute “everyone”, but otherwise 100% on board with this.
But you are still going to have violent people ( wjho aren’t cops) and what do you do about them?
I guess the city of Minneapolis is going to find out.
We’ll see what happens.
It’s not all crazy and parts are not that radical, either.
Looks like Minneapolis is going to give it a try.
It’s not all crazy and parts are not that radical, either.
Looks like Minneapolis is going to give it a try.
Just as an example, f**king no-knock warrants. It’s lunacy.
Just as an example, f**king no-knock warrants. It’s lunacy.
This is an example of why I keep pushing to move my party toward justice.
It is what it is. Do what you can.
This is an example of why I keep pushing to move my party toward justice.
It is what it is. Do what you can.
Sorry, I just used drones as a short hand. Wasn’t trying to provoke or anything. But Donald wrote this
my theory about that is this— you can’t criticize an American President for air strikes that kill civilians without implicitly or explicitly criticizing the military
Well, I don’t know what ‘explains’ that, but there are a couple other explanations of the data. It could be that one of the indicators that Dems are not as bad as Republicans is that you can protest against Dems, but there is really no point in doing it against Republicans. Or you could say that this is a heighten the contradictions strategy. Which makes it sound like everyone who complains is some sort of Leninist. But this is why having people who vociferously claim positions but don’t actually believe them is so corrosive to the discourse.
It is pathetic and a stain on all of us that we can’t stop the wheels for drones. It is strange/amazing/thought provoking that basically one death (that of George Floyd) can set off such protests (they had BLM protests in Osaka, one far right politician called for all foreigners who were protesting to be deported) And again, I don’t have the answers.
Sorry, I just used drones as a short hand. Wasn’t trying to provoke or anything. But Donald wrote this
my theory about that is this— you can’t criticize an American President for air strikes that kill civilians without implicitly or explicitly criticizing the military
Well, I don’t know what ‘explains’ that, but there are a couple other explanations of the data. It could be that one of the indicators that Dems are not as bad as Republicans is that you can protest against Dems, but there is really no point in doing it against Republicans. Or you could say that this is a heighten the contradictions strategy. Which makes it sound like everyone who complains is some sort of Leninist. But this is why having people who vociferously claim positions but don’t actually believe them is so corrosive to the discourse.
It is pathetic and a stain on all of us that we can’t stop the wheels for drones. It is strange/amazing/thought provoking that basically one death (that of George Floyd) can set off such protests (they had BLM protests in Osaka, one far right politician called for all foreigners who were protesting to be deported) And again, I don’t have the answers.
Quick not, not claiming anyone here is making claims they don’t believe in
Quick not, not claiming anyone here is making claims they don’t believe in
no cops at all has me puzzled.
the slogan has nothing to do with the goal, which is to reform policing, not unleash anarchy.
no cops at all has me puzzled.
the slogan has nothing to do with the goal, which is to reform policing, not unleash anarchy.
WaPo on ‘defund’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-police-heres-what-that-really-means/
WaPo on ‘defund’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-police-heres-what-that-really-means/
“ Romney was wrong (and morally repugnant) to support torture, and right (and morally superior to every other senator of his party) to vote against Trump in the impeachment, and now for marching in the Floyd protests. These values can actually co-exist in one person. The world is complicated”
The Applebaum piece did not depict a morally complicated world. It was a fairy tale of Washingtonians with similar noble values where one turns to the dark side and one does not. One was complicit and will be judged by History. In the real world Romney supported torture. He also sided with Trump on the Yemen War funding vote. Complicity. Iirc, Mike Lee generally supports Trump but is opposed to the war in Yemen. So in Applebaum’s world, is he an elf or an orc? ( To be fair to Tolkien, he wrote about some bad elves in the Silmarillion so he was morally more realistic than Applebaum).
The Danner piece shows a pre Trump world where the US supported human rights in some ways while also supporting mass murder and then explains how Trump is a step backwards from the already appalling reality. That is the real world.
“ Romney was wrong (and morally repugnant) to support torture, and right (and morally superior to every other senator of his party) to vote against Trump in the impeachment, and now for marching in the Floyd protests. These values can actually co-exist in one person. The world is complicated”
The Applebaum piece did not depict a morally complicated world. It was a fairy tale of Washingtonians with similar noble values where one turns to the dark side and one does not. One was complicit and will be judged by History. In the real world Romney supported torture. He also sided with Trump on the Yemen War funding vote. Complicity. Iirc, Mike Lee generally supports Trump but is opposed to the war in Yemen. So in Applebaum’s world, is he an elf or an orc? ( To be fair to Tolkien, he wrote about some bad elves in the Silmarillion so he was morally more realistic than Applebaum).
The Danner piece shows a pre Trump world where the US supported human rights in some ways while also supporting mass murder and then explains how Trump is a step backwards from the already appalling reality. That is the real world.
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Unfortunately me, again.
“Just as an example, f**king no-knock warrants. It’s lunacy.”
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/sam-alito-is-an-accessory-to-murder-of-breonna-taylor
https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/200/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/03/29/roberts-alito-cops-who-illegally-entered-home-without-warrant-shot-married-couple-cant-be-sued-because-the-cops-likely-would-have-shot-the-couple-anyway/
I’m all for law enforcement reform, but until we take Grover Norquist at his word and drown HIS sadistic babies in the bathtub by defunding Samuel Alito and the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s just going to more of the piecemeal masturbatory pointlessness set into motion by the Founders’ mandate that nothing be permitted to change in time to take the government’s knee off windpipes and restore lunacy, not to mention oxygen.
Cops shutting off suspects’ oxygen was conceived in the laboratories of democracy on account of states’ rights.
The mice being assaulted in the labs now want to turn the tables on the rats running the labs.
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Unfortunately me, again.
“Just as an example, f**king no-knock warrants. It’s lunacy.”
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/sam-alito-is-an-accessory-to-murder-of-breonna-taylor
https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/200/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/03/29/roberts-alito-cops-who-illegally-entered-home-without-warrant-shot-married-couple-cant-be-sued-because-the-cops-likely-would-have-shot-the-couple-anyway/
I’m all for law enforcement reform, but until we take Grover Norquist at his word and drown HIS sadistic babies in the bathtub by defunding Samuel Alito and the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s just going to more of the piecemeal masturbatory pointlessness set into motion by the Founders’ mandate that nothing be permitted to change in time to take the government’s knee off windpipes and restore lunacy, not to mention oxygen.
Cops shutting off suspects’ oxygen was conceived in the laboratories of democracy on account of states’ rights.
The mice being assaulted in the labs now want to turn the tables on the rats running the labs.
Disbanding the police department and starting from scratch isn’t necessarily the worst of ideas…
Camden’s new day
A crime turnaround in a New Jersey city shows how a reformed police department can contribute to community flourishing
https://world.wng.org/2018/03/camden_s_new_day
…It seemingly began with a risky political maneuver. In 2012 the city, in conjunction with the state and county, decided to dissolve the police force entirely. Officials created a new, nonunion force from scratch, where training had a new emphasis on de-escalation tactics and community policing.
In the process, local leaders made enemies of the police union, a situation no politician wants to be in. “[The police union] did not want to be a part of the process,” said county executive Lou Cappelli, a Democrat who led the effort to reorganize the department under county control. “They were putting their interest ahead of the residents.”…
Now I am no expert on what went on here, and like all such stories, I’m fairly sure there’s more to it, but the idea that dissolving a completely dysfunctional police department might not be an entirely reckless gamble seems at least credible.
Disbanding the police department and starting from scratch isn’t necessarily the worst of ideas…
Camden’s new day
A crime turnaround in a New Jersey city shows how a reformed police department can contribute to community flourishing
https://world.wng.org/2018/03/camden_s_new_day
…It seemingly began with a risky political maneuver. In 2012 the city, in conjunction with the state and county, decided to dissolve the police force entirely. Officials created a new, nonunion force from scratch, where training had a new emphasis on de-escalation tactics and community policing.
In the process, local leaders made enemies of the police union, a situation no politician wants to be in. “[The police union] did not want to be a part of the process,” said county executive Lou Cappelli, a Democrat who led the effort to reorganize the department under county control. “They were putting their interest ahead of the residents.”…
Now I am no expert on what went on here, and like all such stories, I’m fairly sure there’s more to it, but the idea that dissolving a completely dysfunctional police department might not be an entirely reckless gamble seems at least credible.
Donald, although you say upthread that you can’t be bothered to go back and read the Applebaum piece again, out of respect for you I have done so, in order to examine your objections.
The first third of the piece deals with the issue of who collaborates and why by examples from East Germany, and to an extent wartime Nazi-controlled Europe.
It then moves on to Lindsay Graham, and his evolution. I can understand why you object to the fact that it does speak, uncritically, thus:
“Through most of his years in the Senate, Graham, alongside his close friend John McCain, was a spokesperson for a strong military, and for a vision of America as a democratic leader abroad. He also supported a vigorous notion of democracy at home. In his 2014 reelection campaign, he ran as a maverick and a centrist, telling The Atlantic that jousting with the Tea Party was “more fun than any time I’ve been in politics.””
It then turns, by way of a contrast, to Romney, and discusses his past as a financier and management consultant, and then a politician (mentioning as praiseworthy the healthcare scheme he brought in in Massachusetts) and presidential candidate. Again, it is true that she states:
“Both Graham and Romney were devoted to America’s democratic traditions and to the ideals of honesty, accountability, and transparency in public life—all of which Trump scorned.”
But we are only halfway through the piece now. The rest of it is a valuable discussion of how values held, to whatever extent self-deceivingly, can be gradually eroded until people betray every ideal they thought they held.
“The built-in vision of themselves as American patriots, or as competent administrators, or as loyal party members, also created a cognitive distortion that blinded many Republicans and Trump-administration officials to the precise nature of the president’s alternative value system. After all, the early incidents were so trivial. They overlooked the lie about the inauguration because it was silly. They ignored Trump’s appointment of the wealthiest Cabinet in history, and his decision to stuff his administration with former lobbyists, because that’s business as usual. They made excuses for Ivanka Trump’s use of a private email account, and for Jared Kushner’s conflicts of interest, because that’s just family stuff.”
There follows a step by step examination of how Trump has betrayed and contravened what are held to be Republican ideals, the Constitution, the law and any possible definition of what could be considered America’s national interests.
And then a digression to McCain’s funeral, and its illustration of the difference between his (and Romney’s, and the early Graham’s) values and those of Trump. And the difference she mentions, again and again, is patriotism.
Patriotism means different things to different people, and the patriotism represented by some of those people may well be one you (or I) reject. But they really did think they were putting America’s interests first, and Trump really knows that whatever he says he is putting his own interests first. He thinks patriotism is for saps, and can be appealed to in order to win him election or re-election so he can go on looting.
And Applebaum’s extremely detailed analysis of why some people hold to their vision of patriotism, and why some allow it to be gradually eroded so they can continue to support an authoritarian tyrant who would sell America out in a heartbeat for money and personal dominance, is very valuable. And her description of the steps leading up to such a transformation, and the examples she gives of people who have gone down this slope, and how they have justified it, is more than valuable. In fact, as the following might illustrate, it may have already born more than valuable fruit:
But although both resigned, neither Cohn nor Mattis has spoken out in any notable way. Their presence inside the White House helped build Trump’s credibility among traditional Republican voters; their silence now continues to serve the president’s purposes.
***
For the record, I note that Álvarez lives in Venezuela, an actual police state, and yet is willing to speak out against the system he helped create. Cohn, Mattis, and Anonymous, all living freely in the United States of America, have not been nearly so brave.
Most of Applebaum’s piece (about 75% I reckon) deals with how people (most examples from eastern Europe, but obviously some from America) who thought they had principles allowed those principles to be eroded, and the mechanism by which they were eroded. That she concludes this entailed enormous damage to America financially, in lives lost, and in other ways, when for example, they did not impeach, or remove Trump by use of the 25th amendment is only one part of what makes this piece important. That her concept of patriotism, or a principled approach to politics, foreign policy, or the world, is not yours, or mine, or maybe anyone’s here, is not the point. The point is that she identifies how something significant and terrible has happened, and maybe, just maybe, that analysis contributes to putting it right.
Donald, although you say upthread that you can’t be bothered to go back and read the Applebaum piece again, out of respect for you I have done so, in order to examine your objections.
The first third of the piece deals with the issue of who collaborates and why by examples from East Germany, and to an extent wartime Nazi-controlled Europe.
It then moves on to Lindsay Graham, and his evolution. I can understand why you object to the fact that it does speak, uncritically, thus:
“Through most of his years in the Senate, Graham, alongside his close friend John McCain, was a spokesperson for a strong military, and for a vision of America as a democratic leader abroad. He also supported a vigorous notion of democracy at home. In his 2014 reelection campaign, he ran as a maverick and a centrist, telling The Atlantic that jousting with the Tea Party was “more fun than any time I’ve been in politics.””
It then turns, by way of a contrast, to Romney, and discusses his past as a financier and management consultant, and then a politician (mentioning as praiseworthy the healthcare scheme he brought in in Massachusetts) and presidential candidate. Again, it is true that she states:
“Both Graham and Romney were devoted to America’s democratic traditions and to the ideals of honesty, accountability, and transparency in public life—all of which Trump scorned.”
But we are only halfway through the piece now. The rest of it is a valuable discussion of how values held, to whatever extent self-deceivingly, can be gradually eroded until people betray every ideal they thought they held.
“The built-in vision of themselves as American patriots, or as competent administrators, or as loyal party members, also created a cognitive distortion that blinded many Republicans and Trump-administration officials to the precise nature of the president’s alternative value system. After all, the early incidents were so trivial. They overlooked the lie about the inauguration because it was silly. They ignored Trump’s appointment of the wealthiest Cabinet in history, and his decision to stuff his administration with former lobbyists, because that’s business as usual. They made excuses for Ivanka Trump’s use of a private email account, and for Jared Kushner’s conflicts of interest, because that’s just family stuff.”
There follows a step by step examination of how Trump has betrayed and contravened what are held to be Republican ideals, the Constitution, the law and any possible definition of what could be considered America’s national interests.
And then a digression to McCain’s funeral, and its illustration of the difference between his (and Romney’s, and the early Graham’s) values and those of Trump. And the difference she mentions, again and again, is patriotism.
Patriotism means different things to different people, and the patriotism represented by some of those people may well be one you (or I) reject. But they really did think they were putting America’s interests first, and Trump really knows that whatever he says he is putting his own interests first. He thinks patriotism is for saps, and can be appealed to in order to win him election or re-election so he can go on looting.
And Applebaum’s extremely detailed analysis of why some people hold to their vision of patriotism, and why some allow it to be gradually eroded so they can continue to support an authoritarian tyrant who would sell America out in a heartbeat for money and personal dominance, is very valuable. And her description of the steps leading up to such a transformation, and the examples she gives of people who have gone down this slope, and how they have justified it, is more than valuable. In fact, as the following might illustrate, it may have already born more than valuable fruit:
But although both resigned, neither Cohn nor Mattis has spoken out in any notable way. Their presence inside the White House helped build Trump’s credibility among traditional Republican voters; their silence now continues to serve the president’s purposes.
***
For the record, I note that Álvarez lives in Venezuela, an actual police state, and yet is willing to speak out against the system he helped create. Cohn, Mattis, and Anonymous, all living freely in the United States of America, have not been nearly so brave.
Most of Applebaum’s piece (about 75% I reckon) deals with how people (most examples from eastern Europe, but obviously some from America) who thought they had principles allowed those principles to be eroded, and the mechanism by which they were eroded. That she concludes this entailed enormous damage to America financially, in lives lost, and in other ways, when for example, they did not impeach, or remove Trump by use of the 25th amendment is only one part of what makes this piece important. That her concept of patriotism, or a principled approach to politics, foreign policy, or the world, is not yours, or mine, or maybe anyone’s here, is not the point. The point is that she identifies how something significant and terrible has happened, and maybe, just maybe, that analysis contributes to putting it right.
oh look, those do-nothing, deadbeat Dems are at it again:
oh look, those do-nothing, deadbeat Dems are at it again:
Addendum to my last:
And I suppose I ought to make explicit that when I (and I’m guessing Applebaum) use “patriotism” in this context, I am not meaning patriotism qua patriotism, which as we all know “is the last refuge of the scoundrel”, I am referring to patriotism about the ideal of America, to the better angels of your nature. And if the reality has often fallen short of that ideal, or very short, nonetheless it is an ideal worth aspiring to, and the people who genuinely aspire to it are to be valued accordingly.
Addendum to my last:
And I suppose I ought to make explicit that when I (and I’m guessing Applebaum) use “patriotism” in this context, I am not meaning patriotism qua patriotism, which as we all know “is the last refuge of the scoundrel”, I am referring to patriotism about the ideal of America, to the better angels of your nature. And if the reality has often fallen short of that ideal, or very short, nonetheless it is an ideal worth aspiring to, and the people who genuinely aspire to it are to be valued accordingly.
WaPo on ‘defund’
Reading the link, it seems clear that what we have here is a classic case of using a term which is sure to be misinterpreted. And thereby to making the actual goal far harder to achieve than it needed to be.
And if anyone doubts it will be, and is being, misinterpreted, just look at how we here read it. And we’re far more open to making fairly radical changes to the police than most of the population. Probably too late to find a better label now. But I’d say it amounts to an unforced error.
WaPo on ‘defund’
Reading the link, it seems clear that what we have here is a classic case of using a term which is sure to be misinterpreted. And thereby to making the actual goal far harder to achieve than it needed to be.
And if anyone doubts it will be, and is being, misinterpreted, just look at how we here read it. And we’re far more open to making fairly radical changes to the police than most of the population. Probably too late to find a better label now. But I’d say it amounts to an unforced error.
yup
yup
It appears that the Mayor of Washington D.C. may have come up with a great campaign theme for November:
It appears that the Mayor of Washington D.C. may have come up with a great campaign theme for November:
i’d been wondering how to update the maps on my Garmin device. thanks, “updates”, for the strangest spam ever.
i’d been wondering how to update the maps on my Garmin device. thanks, “updates”, for the strangest spam ever.
The fortunate thing about “defund” and “abolish” is that they are easy PR fixes.
Safety, not Enforcement.
De-militarize.
These things often happen when conversations move unexpectedly quickly from a specialist context into mainstream public discourse. Before that happens, though, the provocative label is often needed to draw attention and cut through the noise and bullshit of conferences and seminars.
And having watched the whiplash in my own family as people vacate “deeply held” convictions and values the moment that it becomes the subject of the latest Two Minutes of Hate, I suspect that the phrasing will not remain an obstacle long for anyone open to the need for change, and those who are already looking for a reason to remain with Fearless Leader and serve their Lord and Savior, Fetus Christ, any excuse will do.
The fortunate thing about “defund” and “abolish” is that they are easy PR fixes.
Safety, not Enforcement.
De-militarize.
These things often happen when conversations move unexpectedly quickly from a specialist context into mainstream public discourse. Before that happens, though, the provocative label is often needed to draw attention and cut through the noise and bullshit of conferences and seminars.
And having watched the whiplash in my own family as people vacate “deeply held” convictions and values the moment that it becomes the subject of the latest Two Minutes of Hate, I suspect that the phrasing will not remain an obstacle long for anyone open to the need for change, and those who are already looking for a reason to remain with Fearless Leader and serve their Lord and Savior, Fetus Christ, any excuse will do.
so, “updates” is most likely a scammer.
i’d delete that link.
wj – done
so, “updates” is most likely a scammer.
i’d delete that link.
wj – done
Safety, not Enforcement.
Yes, with a heavy dose of de-escalation. Aggressive tactics often create more danger than there would otherwise be, including danger to the officers themselves.
I brought up no-knock warrants as a prime example of that phenomenon. How do you expect barging into someone’s house in the middle of the night to end well, particularly when you necessarily think the occupant is a dangerous criminal? (Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing such an extreme thing, right?) How are you not completely on edge, fully expecting to be met with force of some kind? Why would you create a situation with such a high likelihood of a gunfight in close quarters? What immediate danger to the public are you addressing with such extreme actions?
The logic of such things escapes me.
Safety, not Enforcement.
Yes, with a heavy dose of de-escalation. Aggressive tactics often create more danger than there would otherwise be, including danger to the officers themselves.
I brought up no-knock warrants as a prime example of that phenomenon. How do you expect barging into someone’s house in the middle of the night to end well, particularly when you necessarily think the occupant is a dangerous criminal? (Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing such an extreme thing, right?) How are you not completely on edge, fully expecting to be met with force of some kind? Why would you create a situation with such a high likelihood of a gunfight in close quarters? What immediate danger to the public are you addressing with such extreme actions?
The logic of such things escapes me.
How are you not completely on edge, fully expecting to be met with force of some kind?
When a citizen wakes in the middle of the night to chaos and fires on and kills a police officer thinking they are defending their home and themselves, the police say that they should have known it was the police and call it capital murder.
When a police officer, with training and situational awareness, breaks into a citizen’s home and kills an innocent and unarmed person, it’s called, “Oh, well, shit happens.”
It’s going to be difficult to reform the police without also reforming the many laws that create so many opportunities for negative police and citizen interactions.
How are you not completely on edge, fully expecting to be met with force of some kind?
When a citizen wakes in the middle of the night to chaos and fires on and kills a police officer thinking they are defending their home and themselves, the police say that they should have known it was the police and call it capital murder.
When a police officer, with training and situational awareness, breaks into a citizen’s home and kills an innocent and unarmed person, it’s called, “Oh, well, shit happens.”
It’s going to be difficult to reform the police without also reforming the many laws that create so many opportunities for negative police and citizen interactions.
Why would you create a situation with such a high likelihood of a gunfight in close quarters?
it’s a situation they’re not likely to suffer much harm from. they’re going to be dressed in body armor, armed to the teeth, probably with night-viz gear; they’ll have the element of surprise, because the victims will be sleeping.
they’ve already sure they’ve got the right people and they know they’re legally insulated.
sounds like a perfect excuse to play soldier.
Why would you create a situation with such a high likelihood of a gunfight in close quarters?
it’s a situation they’re not likely to suffer much harm from. they’re going to be dressed in body armor, armed to the teeth, probably with night-viz gear; they’ll have the element of surprise, because the victims will be sleeping.
they’ve already sure they’ve got the right people and they know they’re legally insulated.
sounds like a perfect excuse to play soldier.
“the many laws that create so many opportunities.”
Such are the opportunity costs of an armed citizenry and an armed government.
The cops could break down the doors while brandishing copies of Reason Magazine and the folks sleeping could respond with their own copies of Reason Magazine, opened to a different page than the cops’ copies, and have it out reasonably.
As it is, other types of magazines make automatic nonsense out of the semi-discourse.
“the many laws that create so many opportunities.”
Such are the opportunity costs of an armed citizenry and an armed government.
The cops could break down the doors while brandishing copies of Reason Magazine and the folks sleeping could respond with their own copies of Reason Magazine, opened to a different page than the cops’ copies, and have it out reasonably.
As it is, other types of magazines make automatic nonsense out of the semi-discourse.
Before that happens, though, the provocative label is often needed to draw attention and cut through the noise and bullshit of conferences and seminars.
This.
Before that happens, though, the provocative label is often needed to draw attention and cut through the noise and bullshit of conferences and seminars.
This.
Sitting in an apartment with a couple of ounces of coke, a Glock 19 stuffed in the couch next to you and 15 or 16 k waiting for a customer is a bad time for a cop to knock on the door and identify himself, even worse if the Glock is a shotgun.
No knock warrants serve a purpose, catch me sleeping or unprepared and you get the drugs, money and less likely gunfire.
They are just overused.
Sitting in an apartment with a couple of ounces of coke, a Glock 19 stuffed in the couch next to you and 15 or 16 k waiting for a customer is a bad time for a cop to knock on the door and identify himself, even worse if the Glock is a shotgun.
No knock warrants serve a purpose, catch me sleeping or unprepared and you get the drugs, money and less likely gunfire.
They are just overused.
The cops could break down the doors while brandishing copies of Reason Magazine…
Since you’ve open the door for me to refer to my favorite high-capacity magazine, this article posted while I was writing my above comment:
“Maybe that’s why it’s taken so long for people to seriously consider police reform, and why they’re so resistant to giving libertarians credit on the issue. Real change requires not just dropping the word “police” but reducing the opportunity for government agents to use violence against the public. That means fewer laws to be enforced and less intrusive enforcement of those laws. That’s a hard pill to swallow for ideologues who are committed to forcing people to do what they don’t want to do or to forcibly stop them from exercising their own preferences.
Libertarians should be happy that Americans are ready to discuss police reform. But we’ll have to see if the country is actually prepared for less policing.”
‘Where Are Libertarians on Police Reform?’ Right Where We’ve Always Been.: Real changes will require fewer laws and less violent enforcement.
The cops could break down the doors while brandishing copies of Reason Magazine…
Since you’ve open the door for me to refer to my favorite high-capacity magazine, this article posted while I was writing my above comment:
“Maybe that’s why it’s taken so long for people to seriously consider police reform, and why they’re so resistant to giving libertarians credit on the issue. Real change requires not just dropping the word “police” but reducing the opportunity for government agents to use violence against the public. That means fewer laws to be enforced and less intrusive enforcement of those laws. That’s a hard pill to swallow for ideologues who are committed to forcing people to do what they don’t want to do or to forcibly stop them from exercising their own preferences.
Libertarians should be happy that Americans are ready to discuss police reform. But we’ll have to see if the country is actually prepared for less policing.”
‘Where Are Libertarians on Police Reform?’ Right Where We’ve Always Been.: Real changes will require fewer laws and less violent enforcement.
Sitting in an apartment with a couple of ounces of coke, a Glock 19…
Leaving aside whether it’s the government’s business if you have either or both.
Sitting in an apartment with a couple of ounces of coke, a Glock 19…
Leaving aside whether it’s the government’s business if you have either or both.
More importantly, leaving aside whether it’s your apartment or the one down the street.
Part of the reason we have checks and balances, and inspectors general, and ombudsmen is that people make mistakes. The problem arises when the mistake can lead to innocent people being not merely inconvenienced, or even impoverished, but killed.
More importantly, leaving aside whether it’s your apartment or the one down the street.
Part of the reason we have checks and balances, and inspectors general, and ombudsmen is that people make mistakes. The problem arises when the mistake can lead to innocent people being not merely inconvenienced, or even impoverished, but killed.
The problem with libertarian arguments is that they are on a foundation of less laws rather than thinking about the human cost. It was Grover Norquist who said he wanted to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub. The subtitle of article “Real changes will require fewer laws” suggests that the focus is not on the disparate impact of policing but the reduction in the number of laws.
Some grafs from your article
Now, after decades of manifestos, journalism, research, and advocacy, America seems to agree with libertarians. “Americans by a 2-to-1 margin are more troubled by the actions of police in the killing of George Floyd than by violence at some protests,” the Wall Street Journal reports from survey results. That just may result in policy changes.
Yes, the paroxysm of protest that is gripping the nation is because we’ve just had enough of having too many laws.
If Congress doesn’t rise to the occasion, the Supreme Court could. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor both look eager to revisit the mess the court created when it invented qualified immunity.
I agree that Thomas’ jurisprudence comes from a very different place. But if you somehow think that Thomas is coming from the same place as libertarians are, just look who he married.
I’m willing to overlook the occasion miss, but Reason often twists facts to support their own ‘reasons’, but is not very honest about the fact that it does that.
The problem with libertarian arguments is that they are on a foundation of less laws rather than thinking about the human cost. It was Grover Norquist who said he wanted to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub. The subtitle of article “Real changes will require fewer laws” suggests that the focus is not on the disparate impact of policing but the reduction in the number of laws.
Some grafs from your article
Now, after decades of manifestos, journalism, research, and advocacy, America seems to agree with libertarians. “Americans by a 2-to-1 margin are more troubled by the actions of police in the killing of George Floyd than by violence at some protests,” the Wall Street Journal reports from survey results. That just may result in policy changes.
Yes, the paroxysm of protest that is gripping the nation is because we’ve just had enough of having too many laws.
If Congress doesn’t rise to the occasion, the Supreme Court could. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor both look eager to revisit the mess the court created when it invented qualified immunity.
I agree that Thomas’ jurisprudence comes from a very different place. But if you somehow think that Thomas is coming from the same place as libertarians are, just look who he married.
I’m willing to overlook the occasion miss, but Reason often twists facts to support their own ‘reasons’, but is not very honest about the fact that it does that.
No knock warrants serve a purpose, catch me sleeping or unprepared and you get the drugs, money and less likely gunfire.
Yeah. No sh*t that this is the reasoning. But why is it that important to get the drugs and money? And is there no other way to catch a drug dealer? It’s asinine.
No knock warrants serve a purpose, catch me sleeping or unprepared and you get the drugs, money and less likely gunfire.
Yeah. No sh*t that this is the reasoning. But why is it that important to get the drugs and money? And is there no other way to catch a drug dealer? It’s asinine.
I brought up no-knock warrants as a prime example of that phenomenon. How do you expect barging into someone’s house in the middle of the night to end well, particularly when you necessarily think the occupant is a dangerous criminal? (Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing such an extreme thing, right?) How are you not completely on edge, fully expecting to be met with force of some kind? Why would you create a situation with such a high likelihood of a gunfight in close quarters? What immediate danger to the public are you addressing with such extreme actions?
The logic of such things escapes me.
Ok, this is one thing.
When a citizen wakes in the middle of the night to chaos and fires on and kills a police officer thinking they are defending their home and themselves, the police say that they should have known it was the police and call it capital murder.
When a police officer, with training and situational awareness, breaks into a citizen’s home and kills an innocent and unarmed person, it’s called, “Oh, well, shit happens.”
This is another.
HSH, how should the law announce its presence to armed and dangerous suspects? I’m fairly sure the men and women who actually do this stuff are aware of the options and the risks. I’m also fairly sure that someone who never has and never will have to arrest an armed and dangerous suspect has very little of use to offer in the “here is how to do this better and safer” category.
That said, the ‘no knock’ thing has been out of hand for years.
As Charles notes, if you wake up with people attacking your home, you defend yourself at your peril. Currently, the police are immune from any harm they inflict when they invade the wrong home, whether its tearing the home apart or killing an occupant who defends him/herself.
So, there are a few things to be worked out. For starters, make the sponsoring agency (local, state or federal) strictly liable and fully accountable financially for civil damages for a wrongful home invasion. Name the name of the officials who reviewed and approved the invasion and make public the data the invasion was based on with no/zero/zip/nada protection for the identify of “confidential informants. Show everyone how well thought out the plan to storm the wrong house was. Put the most senior officer with actual knowledge of the invasion’s “probable cause” on ‘strike two’ status, with termination the penalty for any subsequent bad decision absent objective, mitigating factors (mistakes can be made in good faith and any fair system will take this into account).
I have no issue with addressing violent or potentially violent suspects with overwhelming force sufficient to compel submission. It’s either that or good luck finding law enforcement people willing to put their lives on the line for a public that now seems willing to throw them under the bus if the circumstances are ambiguous. However, the line that can’t be crossed is how an officer treats a compliant, non-violent suspect, particularly for a misdemeanor offense.
Back to HSH’s Point: The leap from Floyd’s murder to ‘how to apprehend probable shooters’ is quite large. Do you want limitations on ATF’s ability to storm the headquarters of heavily armed right wing militias? Have you thought through the ramifications of an urban fire fight? That’s a lot of ammo going off in every direction–if you are unfamiliar with the effective range of high power rifles, it is several miles–you can’t get everyone out of range, not by a long shot (good pun, McKinney!). Further, I assume that with the limitations on ‘no knock’ you have in mind, the the police would also be suitably demilitarized and therefore not armored-up, not helmeted, not using bullet proof vehicles. Again, you’re not putting yourself in harm’s way, you’re telling those willing to do so what they can and cannot do to protect themselves. What do you say to these officers’ surviving spouses if it turns out your policy caused the deaths of the people trying to protect you?
Knee jerk, unexamined thoughts are the least helpful of all. Biden, Pelosi and many others are already not getting on the defunding bandwagon. Why? Because, as phrased, it’s stupid.
Reform–beginning with police unions–is obviously needed in a number of places, but when you get down to why ten thousand arrests proceed according to Hoyle and then you get a Floyd situation, it isn’t the myth of “systemic racism”, it’s the mind-set of one bad person.
Violent crime is a thing. It is a really big thing in the African American community with the overwhelming majority of victims being African Americans killed/injured/robbed/raped by other African Americans. The reason why Floyd’s case is murder-by-cop is that Floyd was completely submissive, completely under control and cuffed to boot. It was straight-up murder. Going after gang-bangers armed to the teeth is a different kettle of fish. Ditto neo nazis or whoever.
There are bad home invasions; there are home invasions that should have and could have been handled much less destructively and dramatically; and there are a lot of other fixes our system needs (civil forfeiture comes to mind). But widespread reform of how violent suspects are handled up to the point of submission and capture is not even in the same solar system as the Floyd situation.
I brought up no-knock warrants as a prime example of that phenomenon. How do you expect barging into someone’s house in the middle of the night to end well, particularly when you necessarily think the occupant is a dangerous criminal? (Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing such an extreme thing, right?) How are you not completely on edge, fully expecting to be met with force of some kind? Why would you create a situation with such a high likelihood of a gunfight in close quarters? What immediate danger to the public are you addressing with such extreme actions?
The logic of such things escapes me.
Ok, this is one thing.
When a citizen wakes in the middle of the night to chaos and fires on and kills a police officer thinking they are defending their home and themselves, the police say that they should have known it was the police and call it capital murder.
When a police officer, with training and situational awareness, breaks into a citizen’s home and kills an innocent and unarmed person, it’s called, “Oh, well, shit happens.”
This is another.
HSH, how should the law announce its presence to armed and dangerous suspects? I’m fairly sure the men and women who actually do this stuff are aware of the options and the risks. I’m also fairly sure that someone who never has and never will have to arrest an armed and dangerous suspect has very little of use to offer in the “here is how to do this better and safer” category.
That said, the ‘no knock’ thing has been out of hand for years.
As Charles notes, if you wake up with people attacking your home, you defend yourself at your peril. Currently, the police are immune from any harm they inflict when they invade the wrong home, whether its tearing the home apart or killing an occupant who defends him/herself.
So, there are a few things to be worked out. For starters, make the sponsoring agency (local, state or federal) strictly liable and fully accountable financially for civil damages for a wrongful home invasion. Name the name of the officials who reviewed and approved the invasion and make public the data the invasion was based on with no/zero/zip/nada protection for the identify of “confidential informants. Show everyone how well thought out the plan to storm the wrong house was. Put the most senior officer with actual knowledge of the invasion’s “probable cause” on ‘strike two’ status, with termination the penalty for any subsequent bad decision absent objective, mitigating factors (mistakes can be made in good faith and any fair system will take this into account).
I have no issue with addressing violent or potentially violent suspects with overwhelming force sufficient to compel submission. It’s either that or good luck finding law enforcement people willing to put their lives on the line for a public that now seems willing to throw them under the bus if the circumstances are ambiguous. However, the line that can’t be crossed is how an officer treats a compliant, non-violent suspect, particularly for a misdemeanor offense.
Back to HSH’s Point: The leap from Floyd’s murder to ‘how to apprehend probable shooters’ is quite large. Do you want limitations on ATF’s ability to storm the headquarters of heavily armed right wing militias? Have you thought through the ramifications of an urban fire fight? That’s a lot of ammo going off in every direction–if you are unfamiliar with the effective range of high power rifles, it is several miles–you can’t get everyone out of range, not by a long shot (good pun, McKinney!). Further, I assume that with the limitations on ‘no knock’ you have in mind, the the police would also be suitably demilitarized and therefore not armored-up, not helmeted, not using bullet proof vehicles. Again, you’re not putting yourself in harm’s way, you’re telling those willing to do so what they can and cannot do to protect themselves. What do you say to these officers’ surviving spouses if it turns out your policy caused the deaths of the people trying to protect you?
Knee jerk, unexamined thoughts are the least helpful of all. Biden, Pelosi and many others are already not getting on the defunding bandwagon. Why? Because, as phrased, it’s stupid.
Reform–beginning with police unions–is obviously needed in a number of places, but when you get down to why ten thousand arrests proceed according to Hoyle and then you get a Floyd situation, it isn’t the myth of “systemic racism”, it’s the mind-set of one bad person.
Violent crime is a thing. It is a really big thing in the African American community with the overwhelming majority of victims being African Americans killed/injured/robbed/raped by other African Americans. The reason why Floyd’s case is murder-by-cop is that Floyd was completely submissive, completely under control and cuffed to boot. It was straight-up murder. Going after gang-bangers armed to the teeth is a different kettle of fish. Ditto neo nazis or whoever.
There are bad home invasions; there are home invasions that should have and could have been handled much less destructively and dramatically; and there are a lot of other fixes our system needs (civil forfeiture comes to mind). But widespread reform of how violent suspects are handled up to the point of submission and capture is not even in the same solar system as the Floyd situation.
One of the truly disorienting aspects of all of this discussion of police militarization, for me, is that for one brief, shining moment ca. 2008 the narrative of the warrior cop had the potential to go the other way. Gen. Petraeus and (dino-conservative) William Lind were arguing in their draft”>https://dnipogo.org/fcs/pdf/fmfm_1-a.pdf”>draft of the Army guide to 4th Generation Warfare (insurgency) that the military needed to use a community policing model that ditched the body armor and fortified FOBs and put vulnerable bodies in communities to share the risk and offer aid. They argued that this was fighting a war on the moral (morale) level. Force protection, they argued, makes an outside force look like bullies and occupiers and turns a populace against them.
But that goes hard on the politicians when the casualties from “our boys” mount, and it’s really hard to deliver a big fat military contract to local constituents when your new stance is to de-escalate and not use any fancy new tactical anything.
I remember having some conversations about this with Andrew over on Taking It Outside. 🙁
It makes for an interesting “what if…” narrative, anyway.
One of the truly disorienting aspects of all of this discussion of police militarization, for me, is that for one brief, shining moment ca. 2008 the narrative of the warrior cop had the potential to go the other way. Gen. Petraeus and (dino-conservative) William Lind were arguing in their draft”>https://dnipogo.org/fcs/pdf/fmfm_1-a.pdf”>draft of the Army guide to 4th Generation Warfare (insurgency) that the military needed to use a community policing model that ditched the body armor and fortified FOBs and put vulnerable bodies in communities to share the risk and offer aid. They argued that this was fighting a war on the moral (morale) level. Force protection, they argued, makes an outside force look like bullies and occupiers and turns a populace against them.
But that goes hard on the politicians when the casualties from “our boys” mount, and it’s really hard to deliver a big fat military contract to local constituents when your new stance is to de-escalate and not use any fancy new tactical anything.
I remember having some conversations about this with Andrew over on Taking It Outside. 🙁
It makes for an interesting “what if…” narrative, anyway.
Now, after decades of manifestos, journalism, research, and advocacy, America seems to agree with libertarians.
Nope. American now has one (1) point of agreement with libertarians. Seeing more agreement than that requires either assuming the conclusion and taking a single point of evidence as sufficient, or else flat out wishful thinking.
Now, after decades of manifestos, journalism, research, and advocacy, America seems to agree with libertarians.
Nope. American now has one (1) point of agreement with libertarians. Seeing more agreement than that requires either assuming the conclusion and taking a single point of evidence as sufficient, or else flat out wishful thinking.
Botched link: https://web.archive.org/web/20130109162752/https://dnipogo.org/fcs/pdf/fmfm_1-a.pdf
Botched link: https://web.archive.org/web/20130109162752/https://dnipogo.org/fcs/pdf/fmfm_1-a.pdf
Further, I assume that with the limitations on ‘no knock’ you have in mind, the the police would also be suitably demilitarized and therefore not armored-up, not helmeted, not using bullet proof vehicles. Again, you’re not putting yourself in harm’s way, you’re telling those willing to do so what they can and cannot do to protect themselves. What do you say to these officers’ surviving spouses if it turns out your policy caused the deaths of the people trying to protect you?
What I’m saying is that they shouldn’t be doing these things at all, short of an immediate threat to public safety. So, no, I’m not suggesting that police put themselves in harm’s way unprotected. I’m suggesting that they stay out of harm’s way unless there’s an immediate need – something more than a sleeping drug dealer.
The only connection to George Floyd’s murder is that we’re talking about police reform generally because of it. Not every reform we might discuss is meant to address what happened to George Floyd.
Further, I assume that with the limitations on ‘no knock’ you have in mind, the the police would also be suitably demilitarized and therefore not armored-up, not helmeted, not using bullet proof vehicles. Again, you’re not putting yourself in harm’s way, you’re telling those willing to do so what they can and cannot do to protect themselves. What do you say to these officers’ surviving spouses if it turns out your policy caused the deaths of the people trying to protect you?
What I’m saying is that they shouldn’t be doing these things at all, short of an immediate threat to public safety. So, no, I’m not suggesting that police put themselves in harm’s way unprotected. I’m suggesting that they stay out of harm’s way unless there’s an immediate need – something more than a sleeping drug dealer.
The only connection to George Floyd’s murder is that we’re talking about police reform generally because of it. Not every reform we might discuss is meant to address what happened to George Floyd.
Looks like I’m not going to get that Internet Archive Wayback Machine link to work properly.
Original link is in the middle of that mess and you can plug that into the Wayback Machine yourself if you so desire.
Looks like I’m not going to get that Internet Archive Wayback Machine link to work properly.
Original link is in the middle of that mess and you can plug that into the Wayback Machine yourself if you so desire.
McTX: Again, you’re not putting yourself in harm’s way, you’re telling those willing to do so what they can and cannot do to protect themselves.
Does McKinney suggest We The People should NOT tell our cops how they can and cannot act?
And not for nothing but this …
… when you get down to why ten thousand arrests proceed according to Hoyle and then you get a Floyd situation, it isn’t the myth of “systemic racism”, it’s the mind-set of one bad person.
… is ridiculous on many levels. If 10,000 cops hassle 9,999 black people (in ways they’d never hassle a white guy in a suit) “according to Hoyle” and actually murder 1 on video, the only problem is “the mind-set of one bad person”, says McKinney. It’s not about pervasive racism because to certain Americans nothing is about pervasive racism.
What do you say to these officers’ surviving spouses if it turns out your policy caused the deaths of the people trying to protect you?
You mean if your “policy” was “no gun control of any kind, ever, because out of 10,000 responsible gun owners only 1 is likely to be a bad person”?
–TP
McTX: Again, you’re not putting yourself in harm’s way, you’re telling those willing to do so what they can and cannot do to protect themselves.
Does McKinney suggest We The People should NOT tell our cops how they can and cannot act?
And not for nothing but this …
… when you get down to why ten thousand arrests proceed according to Hoyle and then you get a Floyd situation, it isn’t the myth of “systemic racism”, it’s the mind-set of one bad person.
… is ridiculous on many levels. If 10,000 cops hassle 9,999 black people (in ways they’d never hassle a white guy in a suit) “according to Hoyle” and actually murder 1 on video, the only problem is “the mind-set of one bad person”, says McKinney. It’s not about pervasive racism because to certain Americans nothing is about pervasive racism.
What do you say to these officers’ surviving spouses if it turns out your policy caused the deaths of the people trying to protect you?
You mean if your “policy” was “no gun control of any kind, ever, because out of 10,000 responsible gun owners only 1 is likely to be a bad person”?
–TP
This is your premise:
particularly when you necessarily think the occupant is a dangerous criminal? (Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing such an extreme thing, right?)
This was injected by Marty:
I’m suggesting that they stay out of harm’s way unless there’s an immediate need – something more than a sleeping drug dealer.
Your view, if I understand correctly, is simply not to make an arrest. Or, if I’m misunderstanding, tell me when and how the police are to apprehend dangerous suspects. If the idea is: no arrests/no risk of bad outcomes, what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
This is your premise:
particularly when you necessarily think the occupant is a dangerous criminal? (Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing such an extreme thing, right?)
This was injected by Marty:
I’m suggesting that they stay out of harm’s way unless there’s an immediate need – something more than a sleeping drug dealer.
Your view, if I understand correctly, is simply not to make an arrest. Or, if I’m misunderstanding, tell me when and how the police are to apprehend dangerous suspects. If the idea is: no arrests/no risk of bad outcomes, what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
nous‘s link:
“War always changes. Our enemies learn and adapt, and we must do the same or lose. But today, war is changing faster and on a larger scale than at any time in the last 350 years. Not only are we, as Marines, facing rapid change in how war is fought, we are facing radical changes in who fights and what they are fighting for.”
Fourth Generation War
nous‘s link:
“War always changes. Our enemies learn and adapt, and we must do the same or lose. But today, war is changing faster and on a larger scale than at any time in the last 350 years. Not only are we, as Marines, facing rapid change in how war is fought, we are facing radical changes in who fights and what they are fighting for.”
Fourth Generation War
Less policing ?
I think so…
https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1270059322806923264
Less policing ?
I think so…
https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1270059322806923264
if you wake up with people attacking your home, you defend yourself at your peril
really hammers a big spike through the heart of the whole “guns protect us from tyranny” mantra that so many of the police cheerleaders like to chant, dunnit.
if you wake up with people attacking your home, you defend yourself at your peril
really hammers a big spike through the heart of the whole “guns protect us from tyranny” mantra that so many of the police cheerleaders like to chant, dunnit.
At last, something from McKinneyTexas I think we should consider:
…what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
Perhaps we should apply this more widely than just to force protection?
Which puts us right back to what hairshirthedonist was posting about.
At last, something from McKinneyTexas I think we should consider:
…what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
Perhaps we should apply this more widely than just to force protection?
Which puts us right back to what hairshirthedonist was posting about.
If the idea is: no arrests/no risk of bad outcomes, what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
how about we start with making stops, searches, arrests, seizures, bail, trials, convictions and sentencing uniform across racial lines?
then we can get on with perfecting our moral standing and ensuring that absolutely nothing in the legal system ever goes wrong.
If the idea is: no arrests/no risk of bad outcomes, what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
how about we start with making stops, searches, arrests, seizures, bail, trials, convictions and sentencing uniform across racial lines?
then we can get on with perfecting our moral standing and ensuring that absolutely nothing in the legal system ever goes wrong.
Does McKinney suggest We The People should NOT tell our cops how they can and cannot act?
Of course you can and good luck with your police recruiting!
If 10,000 cops hassle 9,999 black people (in ways they’d never hassle a white guy in a suit) “according to Hoyle” and actually murder 1 on video, the only problem is “the mind-set of one bad person”, says McKinney. It’s not about pervasive racism because to certain Americans nothing is about pervasive racism.
If you assume racist bad faith in every or even most white cop/black suspect encounters, then sure, you’ve got a problem. OTOH, what is your explanation for cop/suspect violence with both actor’s are black? What is your evidence that many/most/all white police officers act in bad faith? We have lots of Hispanic and Asian officers in TX–are they racists too?
really hammers a big spike through the heart of the whole “guns protect us from tyranny” mantra that so many of the police cheerleaders like to chant, dunnit.
It illustrates a number of contradictions for both sides. On the right, 2nd amendment open carry ought to be taking a huge hit right now, as but one example. Here’s another: what do you think a bunch of white peeps would be doing–or the police for that matter–if a couple 100 African Americans came marching into a neighborhood openly packing? I’ve never been a fan of open carry or the people who advocate for it.
At last, something from McKinneyTexas I think we should consider:
…what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
Perhaps we should apply this more widely than just to force protection?
Which puts us right back to what hairshirthedonist was posting about.
I’m sure there is a point here. Whether it’s a good one or not remains to be seen.
Does McKinney suggest We The People should NOT tell our cops how they can and cannot act?
Of course you can and good luck with your police recruiting!
If 10,000 cops hassle 9,999 black people (in ways they’d never hassle a white guy in a suit) “according to Hoyle” and actually murder 1 on video, the only problem is “the mind-set of one bad person”, says McKinney. It’s not about pervasive racism because to certain Americans nothing is about pervasive racism.
If you assume racist bad faith in every or even most white cop/black suspect encounters, then sure, you’ve got a problem. OTOH, what is your explanation for cop/suspect violence with both actor’s are black? What is your evidence that many/most/all white police officers act in bad faith? We have lots of Hispanic and Asian officers in TX–are they racists too?
really hammers a big spike through the heart of the whole “guns protect us from tyranny” mantra that so many of the police cheerleaders like to chant, dunnit.
It illustrates a number of contradictions for both sides. On the right, 2nd amendment open carry ought to be taking a huge hit right now, as but one example. Here’s another: what do you think a bunch of white peeps would be doing–or the police for that matter–if a couple 100 African Americans came marching into a neighborhood openly packing? I’ve never been a fan of open carry or the people who advocate for it.
At last, something from McKinneyTexas I think we should consider:
…what is our moral standing with subsequent victims?
Perhaps we should apply this more widely than just to force protection?
Which puts us right back to what hairshirthedonist was posting about.
I’m sure there is a point here. Whether it’s a good one or not remains to be seen.
McKinney says, himself, that no-knocks are out of control and suggests a number of measures that would surely curtail their use greatly, but still seems to think I’m a nitwit for bringing it up. Whatever. Breonna Taylor.
McKinney says, himself, that no-knocks are out of control and suggests a number of measures that would surely curtail their use greatly, but still seems to think I’m a nitwit for bringing it up. Whatever. Breonna Taylor.
what is your explanation for cop/suspect violence with both actor’s are black?
black Americans grow up in America, too. they don’t all avoid learning what white people teach each other about black people.
what is your explanation for cop/suspect violence with both actor’s are black?
black Americans grow up in America, too. they don’t all avoid learning what white people teach each other about black people.
TP: Does McKinney suggest We The People should NOT tell our cops how they can and cannot act?
McTX: Of course you can and good luck with your police recruiting!
So, “Here’s a gun and a badge; do whatever you feel like” is how YOU would recruit policemen, McKinney?
–TP
TP: Does McKinney suggest We The People should NOT tell our cops how they can and cannot act?
McTX: Of course you can and good luck with your police recruiting!
So, “Here’s a gun and a badge; do whatever you feel like” is how YOU would recruit policemen, McKinney?
–TP
Just one guy with a mindset?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minneapolis-police-rendered-44-people-unconscious-neck-restraints-five-years-n1220416
Just one guy with a mindset?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minneapolis-police-rendered-44-people-unconscious-neck-restraints-five-years-n1220416
It’s not about pervasive racism because to certain Americans nothing is about pervasive racism.
From my point of view, much of it is pervasive statism with minorities hardest hit. If for no other reason than it’s easier to mistreat them without blowback.
It’s not about pervasive racism because to certain Americans nothing is about pervasive racism.
From my point of view, much of it is pervasive statism with minorities hardest hit. If for no other reason than it’s easier to mistreat them without blowback.
If you assume racist bad faith in every or even most white cop/black suspect encounters, then sure, you’ve got a problem.
You don’t need racist bad faith on anyone’s part if the system that is being enforced is structurally racist. Which it is. The tasks they are being asked to perform are structurally racist and their personal attitudes towards the people they are policing in the execution of those duties don’t matter.
If you assume racist bad faith in every or even most white cop/black suspect encounters, then sure, you’ve got a problem.
You don’t need racist bad faith on anyone’s part if the system that is being enforced is structurally racist. Which it is. The tasks they are being asked to perform are structurally racist and their personal attitudes towards the people they are policing in the execution of those duties don’t matter.
Of course you can and good luck with your police recruiting!
In our God Ordained free market economy there is this thing called supply and demand. If we paid a few police what you attorneys draw down, I’m sure we could find somebody.
Of course you can and good luck with your police recruiting!
In our God Ordained free market economy there is this thing called supply and demand. If we paid a few police what you attorneys draw down, I’m sure we could find somebody.
Here’s another: what do you think a bunch of white peeps would be doing–or the police for that matter–if a couple 100 African Americans came marching into a neighborhood openly packing? I’ve never been a fan of open carry or the people who advocate for it.
Well, we pretty much do know. Nothing new here, mckinney.
Here’s another: what do you think a bunch of white peeps would be doing–or the police for that matter–if a couple 100 African Americans came marching into a neighborhood openly packing? I’ve never been a fan of open carry or the people who advocate for it.
Well, we pretty much do know. Nothing new here, mckinney.
It might be worth looking at the motivations and outcomes in a city that has actually tried this and had some success with it, e.g. Camden NJ.
Also FWIW, I’m unconvinced by the “few bad apples” argument. For any of 1,000 reasons, there are a lot of people in police departments who have an animus toward black people. That is a problem per se, and should be addressed.
As in, if you mouth off about the n***ers on social media or similar, you are no longer a cop.
Chris Rock makes the point that there are some professions where we can’t really tolerate “a few bad apples”. Airline pilots, for example. And cops, for another.
Who knows, if we made being a cop something that didn’t come with a mountain of baggage around militarization and various anti-social attitudes, recruitment numbers might even go up.
It might be worth looking at the motivations and outcomes in a city that has actually tried this and had some success with it, e.g. Camden NJ.
Also FWIW, I’m unconvinced by the “few bad apples” argument. For any of 1,000 reasons, there are a lot of people in police departments who have an animus toward black people. That is a problem per se, and should be addressed.
As in, if you mouth off about the n***ers on social media or similar, you are no longer a cop.
Chris Rock makes the point that there are some professions where we can’t really tolerate “a few bad apples”. Airline pilots, for example. And cops, for another.
Who knows, if we made being a cop something that didn’t come with a mountain of baggage around militarization and various anti-social attitudes, recruitment numbers might even go up.
Perhaps municipalities could create “charter precincts.” 🙂
Perhaps municipalities could create “charter precincts.” 🙂
Yeah, but then the Charter PDs would only police people who are successfully following the law and send all of the criminals to Public PDs.
Then they will all cheer their lack of wrongful death suits.
Yeah, but then the Charter PDs would only police people who are successfully following the law and send all of the criminals to Public PDs.
Then they will all cheer their lack of wrongful death suits.
We have lots of Hispanic and Asian officers in TX–are they racists too?
I’d guess some are. It’s a strange question.
We have lots of Hispanic and Asian officers in TX–are they racists too?
I’d guess some are. It’s a strange question.
GFTNC—
I don’t want to keep arguing about this, so this will be my last post on it.
I didn’t find much useful about the Applebaum piece. If you want to talk about how people betray their professed values, you don’t need to step one foot outside of the Beltway.
GFTNC—
I don’t want to keep arguing about this, so this will be my last post on it.
I didn’t find much useful about the Applebaum piece. If you want to talk about how people betray their professed values, you don’t need to step one foot outside of the Beltway.
More food for thought…
here.
and here.
My bombthrowing is done for today.
More food for thought…
here.
and here.
My bombthrowing is done for today.
Defund the Police.
On its face, this looks like yet another misspoken dumb chant by aggrieved liberals that will serve as a detriment to their future election prospects as obtuse conservatives (I’m not talking about anyone here, unless you want me to) pounce consistently and stupidly as they have with “All Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter”.
As has been noted, defund does not mean defund.
But, it amuses me, or rather energizes me, that the word defund has been used by every conservative over the past 40 years, including Mitt Romney (the master of insincerity; Trump finally said something I agree with) (we’ll leave aside Charles; defunding is a cultish kink, I do believe in his case, even when I agree with him) just to throw out a name, to describe what should happen to every single government function, at every level, at one time or another, for the past 40 years (if we leave out the previous 214 years) by the conservative movement.
I could make a list, but the Federal government has an online list of all the Cabinet Agencies and their functions and sub-functions, so look it up yourselves.
The Federalist Society’s list of the administrative functions of government they want defunded and abolished is identical to the aforementioned list.
The only exceptions for these ilk are the military and the police functions of government, as long as their fire is directed only at what threatens the conservative movement’s goals and aspirations for unregulated, untaxed business and their behavior.
No, when the word “defunded” is used by conservatives against THEIR governing pet peeves, which are legion, we are expected to fall in line with that political correctness.
But when WE aim, or misstate, the term “defunding”, at their armed government, which is only tolerated insofar as it protects the conservative movement’s interests, listen to the politically correct howling from the conservative movement.
It’s deafening.
One further point regarding BLM.
Colin Kaepernick was ridiculed, denigrated, shamed, threatened, with his family, and drummed out of his career by the racist conservative movement for the simple sin of getting down on one knee to once again bring attention to the matter of black lives (how many times does this need to happen in American history) and, trivially (America has placed trivial matters in a realty show trophy case) inconveniencing conservative football fans, with late kickoff.
He did not riot.
He did not damage property, although you could say he himself became damaged property (hear the echoes?) in the eyes of his owners. You don’t bid for uppity slaves.
He did not burn down a building.
He did not loot a store.
He did not assault a cop.
He dropped to one knee.
He, among others, gave America one more chance to listen, respectfully, and peacefully, and with quietude, and without force of arms.
Now look where we are, yet again. Even with the considerable progress made in America in race relations and civil rights.
Instead, from the highest office in the land, elected by the racist conservative movement, once again, he was talked over. He had a rhetorical knee place on his neck by a noose-tying thug.
Somehow, one racist big mouth made it to the top again to betray and shit on all of that progress.
It tells us something about the turds that keep floating to the top in America, no matter how many times we flush.
It was more chance. More than any of us deserve, given the history of betrayed chances.
Last chance.
I’d advise taking it.
Defund the Police.
On its face, this looks like yet another misspoken dumb chant by aggrieved liberals that will serve as a detriment to their future election prospects as obtuse conservatives (I’m not talking about anyone here, unless you want me to) pounce consistently and stupidly as they have with “All Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter”.
As has been noted, defund does not mean defund.
But, it amuses me, or rather energizes me, that the word defund has been used by every conservative over the past 40 years, including Mitt Romney (the master of insincerity; Trump finally said something I agree with) (we’ll leave aside Charles; defunding is a cultish kink, I do believe in his case, even when I agree with him) just to throw out a name, to describe what should happen to every single government function, at every level, at one time or another, for the past 40 years (if we leave out the previous 214 years) by the conservative movement.
I could make a list, but the Federal government has an online list of all the Cabinet Agencies and their functions and sub-functions, so look it up yourselves.
The Federalist Society’s list of the administrative functions of government they want defunded and abolished is identical to the aforementioned list.
The only exceptions for these ilk are the military and the police functions of government, as long as their fire is directed only at what threatens the conservative movement’s goals and aspirations for unregulated, untaxed business and their behavior.
No, when the word “defunded” is used by conservatives against THEIR governing pet peeves, which are legion, we are expected to fall in line with that political correctness.
But when WE aim, or misstate, the term “defunding”, at their armed government, which is only tolerated insofar as it protects the conservative movement’s interests, listen to the politically correct howling from the conservative movement.
It’s deafening.
One further point regarding BLM.
Colin Kaepernick was ridiculed, denigrated, shamed, threatened, with his family, and drummed out of his career by the racist conservative movement for the simple sin of getting down on one knee to once again bring attention to the matter of black lives (how many times does this need to happen in American history) and, trivially (America has placed trivial matters in a realty show trophy case) inconveniencing conservative football fans, with late kickoff.
He did not riot.
He did not damage property, although you could say he himself became damaged property (hear the echoes?) in the eyes of his owners. You don’t bid for uppity slaves.
He did not burn down a building.
He did not loot a store.
He did not assault a cop.
He dropped to one knee.
He, among others, gave America one more chance to listen, respectfully, and peacefully, and with quietude, and without force of arms.
Now look where we are, yet again. Even with the considerable progress made in America in race relations and civil rights.
Instead, from the highest office in the land, elected by the racist conservative movement, once again, he was talked over. He had a rhetorical knee place on his neck by a noose-tying thug.
Somehow, one racist big mouth made it to the top again to betray and shit on all of that progress.
It tells us something about the turds that keep floating to the top in America, no matter how many times we flush.
It was more chance. More than any of us deserve, given the history of betrayed chances.
Last chance.
I’d advise taking it.
Donald: fair enough. And I would only add that if, as seems quite likely, the Applebaum piece was one of the contributory factors to Mattis finally speaking out, then despite your not finding it useful it may in fact have been useful in helping to disillusion rightwingers on the reachable fringe, thus adding, even in a small way, to the possibility of a Trump defeat in November.
Donald: fair enough. And I would only add that if, as seems quite likely, the Applebaum piece was one of the contributory factors to Mattis finally speaking out, then despite your not finding it useful it may in fact have been useful in helping to disillusion rightwingers on the reachable fringe, thus adding, even in a small way, to the possibility of a Trump defeat in November.
John Thullen: well said on Colin Kaepernick.
John Thullen: well said on Colin Kaepernick.
On average US police kill more people each day than UK police do each year. This is not because the UK has so many fewer laws.
On average US police kill more people each day than UK police do each year. This is not because the UK has so many fewer laws.
Pro Bono, it’s bad enough per capita, so why not use the more meaningful number?
Pro Bono, it’s bad enough per capita, so why not use the more meaningful number?
Pro Bono, the numbers are bad enough per capita. So why not use the more meaningful number?
Pro Bono, the numbers are bad enough per capita. So why not use the more meaningful number?
If you like. The US population is about five times the UK population.
Per capita, the rate of police killings in the USA is about 100 times the rate in the UK.
If you like. The US population is about five times the UK population.
Per capita, the rate of police killings in the USA is about 100 times the rate in the UK.
From one of bobbyp’s link (and the link at the link):
This is not the result of one person’s mindset.
From one of bobbyp’s link (and the link at the link):
This is not the result of one person’s mindset.
You don’t need racist bad faith on anyone’s part if the system that is being enforced is structurally racist.
Structural racism is one of the talisman’s that lefty ideologues wave about in lieu of evidence and logic. It begins and ends discussions with its own, self-proving certitude. I say its bullshit.
In our God Ordained free market economy there is this thing called supply and demand. If we paid a few police what you attorneys draw down, I’m sure we could find somebody.
Is this snark or intended as a reasoned response?
McKinney says, himself, that no-knocks are out of control and suggests a number of measures that would surely curtail their use greatly, but still seems to think I’m a nitwit for bringing it up. Whatever. Breonna Taylor.
No. I think if you are going to lay down a limit on what police can do, you need to offer an alternative that doesn’t increase their risk, or society’s risk. You haven’t done that.
This is not the result of one person’s mindset.
It is not, but that was never my point. The Philadelphia video is evidence of a very poorly run police department that seems to reflect the nature of at least part of the city, which is a judgment on Philadelphia, not the country and not the idea that we, in fact, need laws and we do, in fact, need those laws to be enforced.
We’ve all seen far too many police excesses to be complacent. Which is why I specifically noted that reforms are necessary. Which does not mean that every bad idea that limits police options is a brilliant reform that should be adopted without question.
Chris Rock makes the point that there are some professions where we can’t really tolerate “a few bad apples”. Airline pilots, for example. And cops, for another.
This is either a false choice or a straw man. No one ever said we should tolerate ‘bad apples’ as police officers. If anything, we should spend more money testing at the entry level and work hard on finding ways for the good police to out the bad actors without creating a system of informants and counter-informants.
You don’t need racist bad faith on anyone’s part if the system that is being enforced is structurally racist.
Structural racism is one of the talisman’s that lefty ideologues wave about in lieu of evidence and logic. It begins and ends discussions with its own, self-proving certitude. I say its bullshit.
In our God Ordained free market economy there is this thing called supply and demand. If we paid a few police what you attorneys draw down, I’m sure we could find somebody.
Is this snark or intended as a reasoned response?
McKinney says, himself, that no-knocks are out of control and suggests a number of measures that would surely curtail their use greatly, but still seems to think I’m a nitwit for bringing it up. Whatever. Breonna Taylor.
No. I think if you are going to lay down a limit on what police can do, you need to offer an alternative that doesn’t increase their risk, or society’s risk. You haven’t done that.
This is not the result of one person’s mindset.
It is not, but that was never my point. The Philadelphia video is evidence of a very poorly run police department that seems to reflect the nature of at least part of the city, which is a judgment on Philadelphia, not the country and not the idea that we, in fact, need laws and we do, in fact, need those laws to be enforced.
We’ve all seen far too many police excesses to be complacent. Which is why I specifically noted that reforms are necessary. Which does not mean that every bad idea that limits police options is a brilliant reform that should be adopted without question.
Chris Rock makes the point that there are some professions where we can’t really tolerate “a few bad apples”. Airline pilots, for example. And cops, for another.
This is either a false choice or a straw man. No one ever said we should tolerate ‘bad apples’ as police officers. If anything, we should spend more money testing at the entry level and work hard on finding ways for the good police to out the bad actors without creating a system of informants and counter-informants.
I say its bullshit.
then you are an utter fool.
I say its bullshit.
then you are an utter fool.
I think if you are going to lay down a limit on what police can do, you need to offer an alternative that doesn’t increase their risk, or society’s risk. You haven’t done that.
What I proposed was a general principle that the police shouldn’t be doing things that increase the overall risk to the public or themselves. And the excessive use of no-knock warrants is an area where that general principle would clearly apply. Let’s add high-speed car chases and overaggressive crowd control. When I get to write the rules, I guess there will be more onus on me to get further into the nitty-gritty specifics. In the meantime, I will be reading from people with more expertise than either of us to see what ideas seem like good practical ways to apply the principle I’m suggesting – one that stems from what nous wrote about safety taking priority over enforcement.
Which does not mean that every bad idea that limits police options is a brilliant reform that should be adopted without question.
Sure, but that’s a straw man you’ve constructed, not something anyone here wrote.
I think if you are going to lay down a limit on what police can do, you need to offer an alternative that doesn’t increase their risk, or society’s risk. You haven’t done that.
What I proposed was a general principle that the police shouldn’t be doing things that increase the overall risk to the public or themselves. And the excessive use of no-knock warrants is an area where that general principle would clearly apply. Let’s add high-speed car chases and overaggressive crowd control. When I get to write the rules, I guess there will be more onus on me to get further into the nitty-gritty specifics. In the meantime, I will be reading from people with more expertise than either of us to see what ideas seem like good practical ways to apply the principle I’m suggesting – one that stems from what nous wrote about safety taking priority over enforcement.
Which does not mean that every bad idea that limits police options is a brilliant reform that should be adopted without question.
Sure, but that’s a straw man you’ve constructed, not something anyone here wrote.
No one ever said we should tolerate ‘bad apples’ as police officers.
Maybe you haven’t, but it’s a common refrain from people who think nothing should be done because the bad apples are so few. It’s the go-to excuse for many whenever there’s a high-profile incident, despite the fact that we can be reasonably sure there are equally bad incidents that never come to light.
No one ever said we should tolerate ‘bad apples’ as police officers.
Maybe you haven’t, but it’s a common refrain from people who think nothing should be done because the bad apples are so few. It’s the go-to excuse for many whenever there’s a high-profile incident, despite the fact that we can be reasonably sure there are equally bad incidents that never come to light.
You don’t need racist bad faith on anyone’s part if the system that is being enforced is structurally racist.
It seems obvious, but perhaps not. A system that is structurally racist would tend to attract those of racist bad faith to certain positions, would it not?
I would also note that an explanation of structural racism as the explanation is actually an excuse for not taking action against those behaving badly. Because they are no more to blame than anyone else in the system. Including those who somehow have not taken racist actions.
In fact, if the system is so structurally racist, how does any non-racist arise? Or, if you prefer, anyone who somehow refrains from making racist attacks?
I submit that, however much you object to the system and wish to change it, focusing on sanctioning those “bad apples” (however few or many) is the way to go. a) It provides some incentive for even those of racist bent, to refrain from acting on that inclination. b) It removes the attraction of taking employment in those positions (e.g. the police) which provide opportunity for racist acts. Thus improving the make-up of police departments. Both of which would make implementating structural changes easier.
I do understand the attraction, for some, of ranting about “structural racism.” But I submit that, like “defunding” the police, it’s another unforced error. (Or, if one is of a conspiracy turn of mind, evidence that the far right has infiltrated the left, to induce self-destructive language. /snark)
You don’t need racist bad faith on anyone’s part if the system that is being enforced is structurally racist.
It seems obvious, but perhaps not. A system that is structurally racist would tend to attract those of racist bad faith to certain positions, would it not?
I would also note that an explanation of structural racism as the explanation is actually an excuse for not taking action against those behaving badly. Because they are no more to blame than anyone else in the system. Including those who somehow have not taken racist actions.
In fact, if the system is so structurally racist, how does any non-racist arise? Or, if you prefer, anyone who somehow refrains from making racist attacks?
I submit that, however much you object to the system and wish to change it, focusing on sanctioning those “bad apples” (however few or many) is the way to go. a) It provides some incentive for even those of racist bent, to refrain from acting on that inclination. b) It removes the attraction of taking employment in those positions (e.g. the police) which provide opportunity for racist acts. Thus improving the make-up of police departments. Both of which would make implementating structural changes easier.
I do understand the attraction, for some, of ranting about “structural racism.” But I submit that, like “defunding” the police, it’s another unforced error. (Or, if one is of a conspiracy turn of mind, evidence that the far right has infiltrated the left, to induce self-destructive language. /snark)
then you are an utter fool.
Well, I can hardly argue with this compelling logic. Yet, I will try. Here is some evidence of a lack of structural racism: the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, all written and adopted in the 19th century. Civil Rights acts passed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
“Structural racism” is the lefty ideologue’s version of ‘original sin’. It’s a handy, intellectually vacuous substitute for critical analysis. It answers all manner of questions without the need for further explanation. It is a form of name-calling, which is the single most common arrow in the ideologue’s quiver.
then you are an utter fool.
Well, I can hardly argue with this compelling logic. Yet, I will try. Here is some evidence of a lack of structural racism: the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, all written and adopted in the 19th century. Civil Rights acts passed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
“Structural racism” is the lefty ideologue’s version of ‘original sin’. It’s a handy, intellectually vacuous substitute for critical analysis. It answers all manner of questions without the need for further explanation. It is a form of name-calling, which is the single most common arrow in the ideologue’s quiver.
What I proposed was a general principle that the police shouldn’t be doing things that increase the overall risk to the public or themselves.
No, you did not. You specifically said that no-knock’s should be disallowed when seeking to arrest known, dangerous suspects but you did not offer an alternative, even when specifically asked to do so. It was a blanket condemnation of a sometimes necessary tactic. If you contend that someone else should be denied a device that, on balance, mitigates the other person’s risk, then it is incumbent on you to either provide an alternative or walk back the limitation you would impose on someone else.
What I proposed was a general principle that the police shouldn’t be doing things that increase the overall risk to the public or themselves.
No, you did not. You specifically said that no-knock’s should be disallowed when seeking to arrest known, dangerous suspects but you did not offer an alternative, even when specifically asked to do so. It was a blanket condemnation of a sometimes necessary tactic. If you contend that someone else should be denied a device that, on balance, mitigates the other person’s risk, then it is incumbent on you to either provide an alternative or walk back the limitation you would impose on someone else.
You specifically said that no-knock’s should be disallowed when seeking to arrest known, dangerous suspects but you did not offer an alternative, even when specifically asked to do so.
I pointed out what makes them so dangerous, often to the point of creating a situation that was overall less safe for everyone than if they simply didn’t do it. Nowhere did I suggest a complete abolition. Those are words you put into my mouth.
And you seem to miss the point I was making about the dangerous suspect – that the suspect might not actually be dangerous enough to warrant barging into a house unannounced and creating unnecessary havoc. Therein lies the rub – that the tactic is necessarily predicated (often wrongly) on danger from the suspect that is actually less than the danger of the tactic to both the officers and the occupants, not all of whom are necessarily suspected of anything. Sometimes none are, because they went into the wrong f**king house. How is it that the pursuit of someone is so damned important that you have to get a no-knock warrant, but not important enough to go into the right house?
The point being that police rely far too often on highly risky practices with insufficient justification and poor execution, which results in wrongful deaths. Most of the time, we’re talking about overzealous drug-war pursuits, not involving the rare super-dangerous, ultra-violent criminal you propose as the justification.
You specifically said that no-knock’s should be disallowed when seeking to arrest known, dangerous suspects but you did not offer an alternative, even when specifically asked to do so.
I pointed out what makes them so dangerous, often to the point of creating a situation that was overall less safe for everyone than if they simply didn’t do it. Nowhere did I suggest a complete abolition. Those are words you put into my mouth.
And you seem to miss the point I was making about the dangerous suspect – that the suspect might not actually be dangerous enough to warrant barging into a house unannounced and creating unnecessary havoc. Therein lies the rub – that the tactic is necessarily predicated (often wrongly) on danger from the suspect that is actually less than the danger of the tactic to both the officers and the occupants, not all of whom are necessarily suspected of anything. Sometimes none are, because they went into the wrong f**king house. How is it that the pursuit of someone is so damned important that you have to get a no-knock warrant, but not important enough to go into the right house?
The point being that police rely far too often on highly risky practices with insufficient justification and poor execution, which results in wrongful deaths. Most of the time, we’re talking about overzealous drug-war pursuits, not involving the rare super-dangerous, ultra-violent criminal you propose as the justification.
“Structural racism” is the lefty ideologue’s version of ‘original sin’. It’s a handy, intellectually vacuous substitute for critical analysis. It answers all manner of questions without the need for further explanation. It is a form of name-calling, which is the single most common arrow in the ideologue’s quiver.
like i said.
you’re a fool.
you don’t even know what it is you’re arguing against, and yet you’re sputtering and hand-waving and throwing out insults while complaining about weak arguments.
by this point – it comes up here every couple of months, so you’ve had plenty of time to learn it – i assume that’s because you don’t want to know.
“Structural racism” is the lefty ideologue’s version of ‘original sin’. It’s a handy, intellectually vacuous substitute for critical analysis. It answers all manner of questions without the need for further explanation. It is a form of name-calling, which is the single most common arrow in the ideologue’s quiver.
like i said.
you’re a fool.
you don’t even know what it is you’re arguing against, and yet you’re sputtering and hand-waving and throwing out insults while complaining about weak arguments.
by this point – it comes up here every couple of months, so you’ve had plenty of time to learn it – i assume that’s because you don’t want to know.
The point being that police rely far too often on highly risky practices with insufficient justification and poor execution, which results in wrongful deaths.
Ok, put this way, I have no issues. However, I think your statement is truer for some departments than others. But, as is painfully obvious, there are a lot of houses that need cleaning for a lot of reasons. High adrenalin addicts are drawn to law enforcement and they have their place, with strict limitations and under close supervision.
The point being that police rely far too often on highly risky practices with insufficient justification and poor execution, which results in wrongful deaths.
Ok, put this way, I have no issues. However, I think your statement is truer for some departments than others. But, as is painfully obvious, there are a lot of houses that need cleaning for a lot of reasons. High adrenalin addicts are drawn to law enforcement and they have their place, with strict limitations and under close supervision.
When there is a “structure” in place (of policies, practices, etc) that prevents the removal of violent racist cop, it’s a problem that is wider than just the single “bad apple”, and removing that “bad apple” requires dealing with the “structure” problem.
So calling it structural racism is a bridge too far?
When there is a “structure” in place (of policies, practices, etc) that prevents the removal of violent racist cop, it’s a problem that is wider than just the single “bad apple”, and removing that “bad apple” requires dealing with the “structure” problem.
So calling it structural racism is a bridge too far?
So calling it structural racism is a bridge too far?
Structural statism?…
So calling it structural racism is a bridge too far?
Structural statism?…
Beyond policing, what would you call racial disparities in sentencing, even when considering convictions for exactly the same crimes?
What would you call laws that predictably result in racially disparate enforcement and imprisonment (one classic example being harsher laws for crack than for powder cocaine)?
Beyond policing, what would you call racial disparities in sentencing, even when considering convictions for exactly the same crimes?
What would you call laws that predictably result in racially disparate enforcement and imprisonment (one classic example being harsher laws for crack than for powder cocaine)?
wj: I do understand the attraction, for some, of ranting about “structural racism.” But I submit that, like “defunding” the police, it’s another unforced error.
I tend to speak of “pervasive” racism, specifically to avoid linguistic debates about what “structural” means. Nonetheless, I need to know why “structural” is either inaccurate or inappropriate.
At what point does “pervasive” become “structural”?
Going after the “bad apples” that we keep finding in police forces of various kinds and in various places is all well and good. But if you open sack after sack of apples and find “a few” rotten ones in each one, maybe there’s a systemic problem back at the orchard. I say “systemic” to avoid saying “structural”.
McTX: Here is some evidence of a lack of structural racism: the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, all written and adopted in the 19th century. Civil Rights acts passed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
McKinney cites constitutional amendments and legislation which support the notion that de jure racism is no longer A Thing. But The Law is not all there is to the “structure” of society. I hear tell that The Economy has something to do with society’s “structure”, for instance.
Those who look at the disparities between black Americans and white ones, and claim that our social “structure” is not what accounts for them, ought to (try to) explain what does. It’s not “race”, right?
–TP
wj: I do understand the attraction, for some, of ranting about “structural racism.” But I submit that, like “defunding” the police, it’s another unforced error.
I tend to speak of “pervasive” racism, specifically to avoid linguistic debates about what “structural” means. Nonetheless, I need to know why “structural” is either inaccurate or inappropriate.
At what point does “pervasive” become “structural”?
Going after the “bad apples” that we keep finding in police forces of various kinds and in various places is all well and good. But if you open sack after sack of apples and find “a few” rotten ones in each one, maybe there’s a systemic problem back at the orchard. I say “systemic” to avoid saying “structural”.
McTX: Here is some evidence of a lack of structural racism: the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, all written and adopted in the 19th century. Civil Rights acts passed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
McKinney cites constitutional amendments and legislation which support the notion that de jure racism is no longer A Thing. But The Law is not all there is to the “structure” of society. I hear tell that The Economy has something to do with society’s “structure”, for instance.
Those who look at the disparities between black Americans and white ones, and claim that our social “structure” is not what accounts for them, ought to (try to) explain what does. It’s not “race”, right?
–TP
I need to know why “structural” is either inaccurate or inappropriate.
Inaccurate? No, I would agree it exists.
Inappropriate? Yes, to the extent that addressing the structural problems becomes a substitute for dealing with specific acts by individuals.** Which, from what I’m seeing, is a real concern. We need to address both.
** Just as the “few bad apples” meme leads to the opposite.
I need to know why “structural” is either inaccurate or inappropriate.
Inaccurate? No, I would agree it exists.
Inappropriate? Yes, to the extent that addressing the structural problems becomes a substitute for dealing with specific acts by individuals.** Which, from what I’m seeing, is a real concern. We need to address both.
** Just as the “few bad apples” meme leads to the opposite.
The problem with structural racism is that it has to be inferred from the shadows on the wall. But structural statism. That’s easy to see. It’s right in front of your eyes. It’ the wall.
The problem with structural racism is that it has to be inferred from the shadows on the wall. But structural statism. That’s easy to see. It’s right in front of your eyes. It’ the wall.
Beyond policing, what would you call racial disparities in sentencing, even when considering convictions for exactly the same crimes?
I would need to see the underlying data and how it is analyzed, first at the granular level, and then at the macro level to be able to comment intelligently.
What would you call laws that predictably result in racially disparate enforcement and imprisonment (one classic example being harsher laws for crack than for powder cocaine)?
I call that a bad law, but it is hardly the entire structure of the United States.
Those who look at the disparities between black Americans and white ones, and claim that our social “structure” is not what accounts for them, ought to (try to) explain what does. It’s not “race”, right?
This would be an example of over-simplification and drawing too many conclusions from too little data. We are a multi-racial society–and economy. Different ethnic/racial groups land all across the spectrum. If the US were structurally racist, we would not see these outcomes.
It is a finely tuned ‘structure’ that permits most but not all minorities to succeed. To hold back–by design or by outcome–one but not all minorities by structuring the social and economic activity of a country of 330 million people is really quite an accomplishment. So much so that one would expect to see specific anti-black rules, statutes, etc. But we don’t, obviously; we see just the opposite.
Which does not mean we do not see different outcomes. We do. We see a range of outcomes by race. We also see a range of outcomes by educational achievement and by family structure. Blaming structural racism on different outcomes begs the questions above: why some but not all races? How is that structure structured? There are common elements in doing well in life. There are common elements in not doing well in life. These are not structural. If you had to put a word to it, that word would be: universal.
So, I say again, the concept of ‘structural racism’ is an intellectually lazy way of addressing difficult, complicating and sometimes vexing range of questions. Or, in short, it is bullshit.
Beyond policing, what would you call racial disparities in sentencing, even when considering convictions for exactly the same crimes?
I would need to see the underlying data and how it is analyzed, first at the granular level, and then at the macro level to be able to comment intelligently.
What would you call laws that predictably result in racially disparate enforcement and imprisonment (one classic example being harsher laws for crack than for powder cocaine)?
I call that a bad law, but it is hardly the entire structure of the United States.
Those who look at the disparities between black Americans and white ones, and claim that our social “structure” is not what accounts for them, ought to (try to) explain what does. It’s not “race”, right?
This would be an example of over-simplification and drawing too many conclusions from too little data. We are a multi-racial society–and economy. Different ethnic/racial groups land all across the spectrum. If the US were structurally racist, we would not see these outcomes.
It is a finely tuned ‘structure’ that permits most but not all minorities to succeed. To hold back–by design or by outcome–one but not all minorities by structuring the social and economic activity of a country of 330 million people is really quite an accomplishment. So much so that one would expect to see specific anti-black rules, statutes, etc. But we don’t, obviously; we see just the opposite.
Which does not mean we do not see different outcomes. We do. We see a range of outcomes by race. We also see a range of outcomes by educational achievement and by family structure. Blaming structural racism on different outcomes begs the questions above: why some but not all races? How is that structure structured? There are common elements in doing well in life. There are common elements in not doing well in life. These are not structural. If you had to put a word to it, that word would be: universal.
So, I say again, the concept of ‘structural racism’ is an intellectually lazy way of addressing difficult, complicating and sometimes vexing range of questions. Or, in short, it is bullshit.
I call that a bad law, but it is hardly the entire structure of the United States.
Bad because of the racial disparities it produces? It might not remotely be the “entire structure” of the United States (whatever that means), but it is a structural or systemic source of racial disparity. It’s not a matter of a person or some number of people acting on racial animus producing a bad result. It’s larger than that, and can produce bad results even in the absence of racism in the people responsible for carrying out the law.
I call that a bad law, but it is hardly the entire structure of the United States.
Bad because of the racial disparities it produces? It might not remotely be the “entire structure” of the United States (whatever that means), but it is a structural or systemic source of racial disparity. It’s not a matter of a person or some number of people acting on racial animus producing a bad result. It’s larger than that, and can produce bad results even in the absence of racism in the people responsible for carrying out the law.
The problem with structural racism is that it has to be inferred from the shadows on the wall.
it really doesn’t.
banks give better loans to white people than they give black people. resumes with stereotypical black names are less likely to get callbacks for jobs. black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, tried, sentenced and they get heavier sentences.
[yes, even after controlling for things like income and education]
So, I say again
in the real world, assertions don’t change facts.
The problem with structural racism is that it has to be inferred from the shadows on the wall.
it really doesn’t.
banks give better loans to white people than they give black people. resumes with stereotypical black names are less likely to get callbacks for jobs. black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, tried, sentenced and they get heavier sentences.
[yes, even after controlling for things like income and education]
So, I say again
in the real world, assertions don’t change facts.
But structural statism. That’s easy to see. It’s right in front of your eyes. It’ the wall.
Statism is structural. The state is a structure for the purposes of this discussion. It’s like saying “mammalian dog” (as opposed to the non-existent non-mammalian dog).
But structural statism. That’s easy to see. It’s right in front of your eyes. It’ the wall.
Statism is structural. The state is a structure for the purposes of this discussion. It’s like saying “mammalian dog” (as opposed to the non-existent non-mammalian dog).
banks give better loans to white people than they give black people. resumes with stereotypical black names are less likely to get callbacks for jobs. black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, tried, sentenced and they get heavier sentences.
I think these are poor examples of “structural racism.” I would say that a far better example is, for example, having laws which give wildly different penalties to different illegal drugs, which were written deliberately based on which drugs tended to be used by which races.
That is, unarguably, structural racism. The other is racism, but structural? Not unless we redefine what the word means. Note that real structural racism requires different kinds of remedies than individual racism.
banks give better loans to white people than they give black people. resumes with stereotypical black names are less likely to get callbacks for jobs. black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, tried, sentenced and they get heavier sentences.
I think these are poor examples of “structural racism.” I would say that a far better example is, for example, having laws which give wildly different penalties to different illegal drugs, which were written deliberately based on which drugs tended to be used by which races.
That is, unarguably, structural racism. The other is racism, but structural? Not unless we redefine what the word means. Note that real structural racism requires different kinds of remedies than individual racism.
https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/rcc/RCC-Structural-Racism-Glossary.pdf
I’d say widespread banking and employment practices fall under the above definition.
https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/rcc/RCC-Structural-Racism-Glossary.pdf
I’d say widespread banking and employment practices fall under the above definition.
Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist.
I’d say widespread banking and employment practices fall under the above definition.
I am open to modifying my view IF I am shown valid evidence of this. For example, if I were arguing against this proposition, I’d be reluctant to refer to Reason or National Review or City Journal. So, a piece by someone with built-in confirmation bias isn’t going to be persuasive.
I’m particularly suspicious of banking claims. I’d have to know relative credit histories.
On the employment piece of it, I’d have to know which prospective employers had a prior, negative minority hiring experience.
Bad news for us as a country: it is a lot more difficult to terminate a minority than it is to terminate a WP. This is particularly true for terminating an African American. Smaller business, those less able to absorb the high cost of employment litigation, will hire defensively. Our current, racially-charged environment isn’t helping. I believe the term for this is ‘unintended consequences’.
Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist.
I’d say widespread banking and employment practices fall under the above definition.
I am open to modifying my view IF I am shown valid evidence of this. For example, if I were arguing against this proposition, I’d be reluctant to refer to Reason or National Review or City Journal. So, a piece by someone with built-in confirmation bias isn’t going to be persuasive.
I’m particularly suspicious of banking claims. I’d have to know relative credit histories.
On the employment piece of it, I’d have to know which prospective employers had a prior, negative minority hiring experience.
Bad news for us as a country: it is a lot more difficult to terminate a minority than it is to terminate a WP. This is particularly true for terminating an African American. Smaller business, those less able to absorb the high cost of employment litigation, will hire defensively. Our current, racially-charged environment isn’t helping. I believe the term for this is ‘unintended consequences’.
Bad news for us as a country: it is a lot more difficult to terminate a minority than it is to terminate a WP.
There are effects with other classes also. There may be a bias against hiring women of child-bearing age because, as a class, they’re more expensive to employ than older women and men.
Bad news for us as a country: it is a lot more difficult to terminate a minority than it is to terminate a WP.
There are effects with other classes also. There may be a bias against hiring women of child-bearing age because, as a class, they’re more expensive to employ than older women and men.
“Bad news for us as a country: it is a lot more difficult to terminate a minority than it is to terminate a WP. This is particularly true for terminating an African American.
Well, until recent history it was a lot more difficult for a minority, including African Americans, to get hired in the first place, particularly among the professions, so it isn’t unalloyed bad news for America.
There’s bad news and then there is worse news.
View it as a type of reparation. I didn’t say “like it”; I said “view it”.
But your point may not hold water in the first place if this analysis from the last re(de)cession holds its own water:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/07/25/9992/the-black-and-white-labor-gap-in-america/
Takeaway:
“The gap between black and white unemployment rates also widened during the Great Recession and the ensuing weak labor market recovery. The unemployment rate for African Americans rose by 7.7 percentage points from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2011, compared to an increase of only 3.9 percentage points for whites during the same period.”
This seems to be the pattern from my admittedly desultory reading about the subject every time we have a downturn.
If it’s harder to fire African Americans, then why does this pattern seem consistent thru time.
It will be interesting to see the breakdown of unemployment among groups during the COVID-19 debacle.
Most meatpacking plants employ minorities.
They are so “lucky”, the duckies, because in many cases, Nevada being the most recent, they are being forced by Federal decree to go to work, and a diagnosis of Covid is now not accepted for absence, and they can be fired without recourse for staying home, so they show up sick and contagious.
There doesn’t seem to be any advantage matter in being a minority, though I am fairly certain that if they were mostly white work forces, the meatpacking companies would have to relent somewhat because generally speaking, groups of whites, even poor whites, don’t put up with crap like that, and the country would be outraged to see groups of white workers treated so badly.
Large percentages of the meatpacking work force are Covid carriers and are spreading the disease by force to their co-workers.
I’m sure I’m wrong about all of this, facts being what they are.
Considering Covid incidence death rate among African Americans, the virus seems to operating with a perverse affirmative action on them too.
“Bad news for us as a country: it is a lot more difficult to terminate a minority than it is to terminate a WP. This is particularly true for terminating an African American.
Well, until recent history it was a lot more difficult for a minority, including African Americans, to get hired in the first place, particularly among the professions, so it isn’t unalloyed bad news for America.
There’s bad news and then there is worse news.
View it as a type of reparation. I didn’t say “like it”; I said “view it”.
But your point may not hold water in the first place if this analysis from the last re(de)cession holds its own water:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/07/25/9992/the-black-and-white-labor-gap-in-america/
Takeaway:
“The gap between black and white unemployment rates also widened during the Great Recession and the ensuing weak labor market recovery. The unemployment rate for African Americans rose by 7.7 percentage points from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2011, compared to an increase of only 3.9 percentage points for whites during the same period.”
This seems to be the pattern from my admittedly desultory reading about the subject every time we have a downturn.
If it’s harder to fire African Americans, then why does this pattern seem consistent thru time.
It will be interesting to see the breakdown of unemployment among groups during the COVID-19 debacle.
Most meatpacking plants employ minorities.
They are so “lucky”, the duckies, because in many cases, Nevada being the most recent, they are being forced by Federal decree to go to work, and a diagnosis of Covid is now not accepted for absence, and they can be fired without recourse for staying home, so they show up sick and contagious.
There doesn’t seem to be any advantage matter in being a minority, though I am fairly certain that if they were mostly white work forces, the meatpacking companies would have to relent somewhat because generally speaking, groups of whites, even poor whites, don’t put up with crap like that, and the country would be outraged to see groups of white workers treated so badly.
Large percentages of the meatpacking work force are Covid carriers and are spreading the disease by force to their co-workers.
I’m sure I’m wrong about all of this, facts being what they are.
Considering Covid incidence death rate among African Americans, the virus seems to operating with a perverse affirmative action on them too.
Denying structural racism exists is pure bullshitism
A string of evidence free assertions is not an argument. It is bullshit.
Denying structural racism exists is pure bullshitism
A string of evidence free assertions is not an argument. It is bullshit.
Structural racism, as in the white nationalist joists and support beams of the White House, in the persons of:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/stephen-miller-crafting-trumps-big-speech-on-the-colored-question
Structural racism, as in the white nationalist joists and support beams of the White House, in the persons of:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/stephen-miller-crafting-trumps-big-speech-on-the-colored-question
The mind simply boggles at the thought that anybody, even in the Trump White House, could think Miller writing a racial reconciliation speech would be a good idea.
The mind simply boggles at the thought that anybody, even in the Trump White House, could think Miller writing a racial reconciliation speech would be a good idea.
The Miller story seems limited to one report. I’m waiting for confirmation.
In the meantime, this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/take-confederate-names-off-our-army-bases/612832/
It’s time to take the names of Confederate generals off of our military bases.
Not erasing history, just refusing to afford this “lost cause” nonsense any further pride of place. Let them become another quaint historical designation that no longer serves the public interest.
The Miller story seems limited to one report. I’m waiting for confirmation.
In the meantime, this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/take-confederate-names-off-our-army-bases/612832/
It’s time to take the names of Confederate generals off of our military bases.
Not erasing history, just refusing to afford this “lost cause” nonsense any further pride of place. Let them become another quaint historical designation that no longer serves the public interest.
To the extent that McTX’s comments can be read as “structural racism doesn’t exist”, I disagree. To the extent he’s saying all links in a causal chain between structural racism and disparate results for black Americans must be proven before acknowledging it, he sets an unreasonably high standard.
Unwinding these issues is complex to put it mildly and where there is so much evidence of large disparate results for black Americans we shouldn’t start with a rebuttable presumption that we are colorblind or that small affirmative action type laws are enough (google Minnesota Paradox for more on this). The presumption should be that there is structural racism. Does that presumption of racism endure until we achieve perfect parity between whites and blacks in America? No, that’s too far; we don’t guarantee results. But at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind and I think we have always been in the “difference in kind” range for black Americans by any metric that I can think of.
Where McTX complains that for some on the left the “systematic racism” hammer has become their only (or at least most convenient) tool so everything they see looks like a nail, I agree. Where he complains that “systemic racism” is weaponized in a way that shuts down reasonable discussion and debate, I agree. This is especially troubling where there is an added layer that white people can’t see past their racism and are incapable, or at least crippled, in even discussing the issue.
I have no problem acknowledging that I was raised in a racist society and I will go as far as to say that racism (or at least tribalism) is probably hardwired in humans (see red shirt/blue shirt study that has been discussed here before). But just like I can overcome those other lizard brain impulses (gluttony, sex drive, etc.) and function in polite society, I can do the same for these tribal impulses. More importantly, there is no chance to fix structural racism without allowing white Americans a full seat at the table. I don’t know what the ultimate solutions are, but I do know that you don’t get buy-in by shaming or bullying people. You can brute force a result, but you’ll engender so much resentment that the cycle will continue if not get worse.
To the extent that McTX’s comments can be read as “structural racism doesn’t exist”, I disagree. To the extent he’s saying all links in a causal chain between structural racism and disparate results for black Americans must be proven before acknowledging it, he sets an unreasonably high standard.
Unwinding these issues is complex to put it mildly and where there is so much evidence of large disparate results for black Americans we shouldn’t start with a rebuttable presumption that we are colorblind or that small affirmative action type laws are enough (google Minnesota Paradox for more on this). The presumption should be that there is structural racism. Does that presumption of racism endure until we achieve perfect parity between whites and blacks in America? No, that’s too far; we don’t guarantee results. But at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind and I think we have always been in the “difference in kind” range for black Americans by any metric that I can think of.
Where McTX complains that for some on the left the “systematic racism” hammer has become their only (or at least most convenient) tool so everything they see looks like a nail, I agree. Where he complains that “systemic racism” is weaponized in a way that shuts down reasonable discussion and debate, I agree. This is especially troubling where there is an added layer that white people can’t see past their racism and are incapable, or at least crippled, in even discussing the issue.
I have no problem acknowledging that I was raised in a racist society and I will go as far as to say that racism (or at least tribalism) is probably hardwired in humans (see red shirt/blue shirt study that has been discussed here before). But just like I can overcome those other lizard brain impulses (gluttony, sex drive, etc.) and function in polite society, I can do the same for these tribal impulses. More importantly, there is no chance to fix structural racism without allowing white Americans a full seat at the table. I don’t know what the ultimate solutions are, but I do know that you don’t get buy-in by shaming or bullying people. You can brute force a result, but you’ll engender so much resentment that the cycle will continue if not get worse.
Substantive comment, Pollo de muerte.
Meanwhile, who exactly wants to defund public services, including the policing services?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/how-mitch-mcconnell-defunding-police/612856/
I don’t think the police will be placing a knee on McConnell’s neck in response to this, but I can envision individual cops who have their retirements and possibly health insurance benefits placed in receivership because of McConnell’s (read Republican Party’s) incessant use of the fiscal hammer, taking it out on demonstrators’ heads with even more gusto.
While I’m at it, a couple of observations:
Why do Democratic Mayors in major cities (read LA, NYC, Chicago) seem to have so little control over the violent, abusive behavior of their police forces, unless they, like many conservative mayors, place a higher premium on maintaining order thru abusive practices than they do rooting out the abuse?
Also, why have police forces in general (my impression from reading the news) seemed to target relatively peaceful demonstrations, and the media covering them, for disruption (the Washington DC Trump fiasco included) rather than concentrating their full lawful force against, first, violent parties like nihilist Antifa, and second, lawbreaking looters and property crimes?
Am I right here? The cops seem to be ceding the ground to the worst offenders, while using an awful lot of tear gas, rubber bullets, and truncheons on the rightful gatherings.
I’ll leave aside, and sneeringly so, examples of cops tolerating fully armed right wing gatherings, or even warning them off for oddly sketchy, but friendly reasons, while not engaging Antifa types, who it must be said, at least are not brandishing military grade weaponry in public, that I have observed.
It seems to be an overall strategy to confront the peaceful while letting the wild ones run rampant.
To what end? I have a guess, but nevermind.
Substantive comment, Pollo de muerte.
Meanwhile, who exactly wants to defund public services, including the policing services?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/how-mitch-mcconnell-defunding-police/612856/
I don’t think the police will be placing a knee on McConnell’s neck in response to this, but I can envision individual cops who have their retirements and possibly health insurance benefits placed in receivership because of McConnell’s (read Republican Party’s) incessant use of the fiscal hammer, taking it out on demonstrators’ heads with even more gusto.
While I’m at it, a couple of observations:
Why do Democratic Mayors in major cities (read LA, NYC, Chicago) seem to have so little control over the violent, abusive behavior of their police forces, unless they, like many conservative mayors, place a higher premium on maintaining order thru abusive practices than they do rooting out the abuse?
Also, why have police forces in general (my impression from reading the news) seemed to target relatively peaceful demonstrations, and the media covering them, for disruption (the Washington DC Trump fiasco included) rather than concentrating their full lawful force against, first, violent parties like nihilist Antifa, and second, lawbreaking looters and property crimes?
Am I right here? The cops seem to be ceding the ground to the worst offenders, while using an awful lot of tear gas, rubber bullets, and truncheons on the rightful gatherings.
I’ll leave aside, and sneeringly so, examples of cops tolerating fully armed right wing gatherings, or even warning them off for oddly sketchy, but friendly reasons, while not engaging Antifa types, who it must be said, at least are not brandishing military grade weaponry in public, that I have observed.
It seems to be an overall strategy to confront the peaceful while letting the wild ones run rampant.
To what end? I have a guess, but nevermind.
This is germane:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gundlach-warns-of-white-collar-layoffs-as-covid-19-reveals-whos-swimming-naked-2020-06-10?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
In regard to who gets fired and who doesn’t, it would seem, given the parlous state of things, including employment, that corporate America, including Gundlach, should resist firing and laying off ANYONE, regardless of race, OR, be made to resist the impulse to downsize for efficiency’s sake.
I invest in corporate America via the stock market. I know most publicly traded companies can handle keeping as many of their employees employed as possible, regardless of their relative usefulness to the corporations, rather than having them unemployed and further stretching local and state unemployment infrastructures and the safety net.
Don’t fire people right now. Of any color. OK?
I know this position is considered unAmerican, but do you wanna keep America or do you want America to be tiptop efficient and rationalize the highest employment rates since the Great Depression.
Rationality ain’t our friend right now.
Most of those white collar workers deemed expendable at this parlous time I expect are white men and women. They may not gather in Lafayette Square to protest their treatment, but they will be pissed off and there will be blowback.
I’m more afraid of pissed off unemployed whites than pissed off unemployed blacks and Hispanics.
And so should the rest of us.
The former are better organized politically, not to mention more likely to generate empathy among the mostly white American public.
We won’t like it.
This is germane:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gundlach-warns-of-white-collar-layoffs-as-covid-19-reveals-whos-swimming-naked-2020-06-10?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
In regard to who gets fired and who doesn’t, it would seem, given the parlous state of things, including employment, that corporate America, including Gundlach, should resist firing and laying off ANYONE, regardless of race, OR, be made to resist the impulse to downsize for efficiency’s sake.
I invest in corporate America via the stock market. I know most publicly traded companies can handle keeping as many of their employees employed as possible, regardless of their relative usefulness to the corporations, rather than having them unemployed and further stretching local and state unemployment infrastructures and the safety net.
Don’t fire people right now. Of any color. OK?
I know this position is considered unAmerican, but do you wanna keep America or do you want America to be tiptop efficient and rationalize the highest employment rates since the Great Depression.
Rationality ain’t our friend right now.
Most of those white collar workers deemed expendable at this parlous time I expect are white men and women. They may not gather in Lafayette Square to protest their treatment, but they will be pissed off and there will be blowback.
I’m more afraid of pissed off unemployed whites than pissed off unemployed blacks and Hispanics.
And so should the rest of us.
The former are better organized politically, not to mention more likely to generate empathy among the mostly white American public.
We won’t like it.
This is especially troubling where there is an added layer that white people can’t see past their racism and are incapable, or at least crippled, in even discussing the issue.
It’s possible that the ordering works the other way, that there seems to be no way to get white people to see past their past their racism without using the notions of systemic racism or weaponizing those notions. If there is systemic racism, what ‘weapon’ should the left use to discuss it? Or should it simply pretend not to talk about it, hoping it will go away some day?
This is especially troubling where there is an added layer that white people can’t see past their racism and are incapable, or at least crippled, in even discussing the issue.
It’s possible that the ordering works the other way, that there seems to be no way to get white people to see past their past their racism without using the notions of systemic racism or weaponizing those notions. If there is systemic racism, what ‘weapon’ should the left use to discuss it? Or should it simply pretend not to talk about it, hoping it will go away some day?
You can brute force a result, but you’ll engender so much resentment that the cycle will continue if not get worse.
this just popped up on my FB feed:
by amazing coincidence, it was preceded by a picture of a protest sign that read:
You can brute force a result, but you’ll engender so much resentment that the cycle will continue if not get worse.
this just popped up on my FB feed:
by amazing coincidence, it was preceded by a picture of a protest sign that read:
Stepping back and looking at the larger picture, from my 7:33 am comment, this long read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/coronavirus-banks-collapse/612247/
Stepping back and looking at the larger picture, from my 7:33 am comment, this long read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/coronavirus-banks-collapse/612247/
You can brute force a result, but you’ll engender so much resentment that the cycle will continue if not get worse.
Yet oddly, in a maddening and stubbornly slow way, one could reasonably assert that the arc of justice is bending toward freedom. We live in the historical backwash of blatantly racist public policy (cf. The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein). Roadblocks remain. Progress, such as it is has been propelled, to a great degree, by those who stridently and unashamedly call out racism, both at the individual and institutional level.
How would it have changed otherwise? By magic?
This is how social struggle works. Our country was founded by folks who took up arms and engaged in, well, treason. We fought a bloody civil war over slavery. The use of national guard troops was a common tactic used to bust unions for decades. The civil rights era of the 50’s to early 70’s was marked by a good deal of violence….and shaming. Women fighting for the vote in the early 20th century could get quite strident (read the history), and I’m pretty sure they shamed and bullied a lot of men in the process. Or more recently, the struggle for gay rights embodies this same attribute (Stonewall anybody?). Perhaps you could explain to us your theory as to why attitudes on that issue underwent such a fundamental change over the last 20 years.
I disagree heartily with your thesis that “engendering resentment” will “make it worse”. The resentment is built in. Conditions are “worse” for those who suffer needlessly due to white racism.
Setting the terms of any discussion is part of the struggle. You too, are trying to set the terms of debate to favor your viewpoint. You are not the only one who gets to define “reasonability”. Acting surprised that those not sharing your take are trying to do likewise should, well, come as no surprise.
Perhaps it is this: Those who so decry “bullying” are the ones who are resolutely refusing to engage.
You can brute force a result, but you’ll engender so much resentment that the cycle will continue if not get worse.
Yet oddly, in a maddening and stubbornly slow way, one could reasonably assert that the arc of justice is bending toward freedom. We live in the historical backwash of blatantly racist public policy (cf. The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein). Roadblocks remain. Progress, such as it is has been propelled, to a great degree, by those who stridently and unashamedly call out racism, both at the individual and institutional level.
How would it have changed otherwise? By magic?
This is how social struggle works. Our country was founded by folks who took up arms and engaged in, well, treason. We fought a bloody civil war over slavery. The use of national guard troops was a common tactic used to bust unions for decades. The civil rights era of the 50’s to early 70’s was marked by a good deal of violence….and shaming. Women fighting for the vote in the early 20th century could get quite strident (read the history), and I’m pretty sure they shamed and bullied a lot of men in the process. Or more recently, the struggle for gay rights embodies this same attribute (Stonewall anybody?). Perhaps you could explain to us your theory as to why attitudes on that issue underwent such a fundamental change over the last 20 years.
I disagree heartily with your thesis that “engendering resentment” will “make it worse”. The resentment is built in. Conditions are “worse” for those who suffer needlessly due to white racism.
Setting the terms of any discussion is part of the struggle. You too, are trying to set the terms of debate to favor your viewpoint. You are not the only one who gets to define “reasonability”. Acting surprised that those not sharing your take are trying to do likewise should, well, come as no surprise.
Perhaps it is this: Those who so decry “bullying” are the ones who are resolutely refusing to engage.
Let’s shoot more of them:
https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/tpd-major-police-shoot-black-americans-less-we-probably-ought
Interesting to see how this shooting off of a mouth might affect Tulsa police outreach to their black population and confrontations between police and black citizenry.
Maybe shoot more of them in the back too. I don’t think the Census keeps track of that feature.
This too:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=New+Jersey+Floyd+mocking&filters=tnTID%3a%22A5439A16-839C-4421-9B4C-5FA51183AAFF%22+tnVersion%3a%223562977%22+segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%220%22+tnOrder%3a%224ef4afe8-c43d-4a51-9473-bc122385af81%22&form=HPNN01
It’s almost as if every time someone denies the continued existence of structural racism, certain elements hop to and do their best to reinforce the structure.
True, you can’t generalize from these particulars about white bohunks (certainly not about me; why, I’d never), but every incidence of black on black and black on white violence seems to reflect on all blacks, leading to bad ends, so maybe I am culpable for the bohunks.
Let’s shoot more of them:
https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/tpd-major-police-shoot-black-americans-less-we-probably-ought
Interesting to see how this shooting off of a mouth might affect Tulsa police outreach to their black population and confrontations between police and black citizenry.
Maybe shoot more of them in the back too. I don’t think the Census keeps track of that feature.
This too:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=New+Jersey+Floyd+mocking&filters=tnTID%3a%22A5439A16-839C-4421-9B4C-5FA51183AAFF%22+tnVersion%3a%223562977%22+segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%220%22+tnOrder%3a%224ef4afe8-c43d-4a51-9473-bc122385af81%22&form=HPNN01
It’s almost as if every time someone denies the continued existence of structural racism, certain elements hop to and do their best to reinforce the structure.
True, you can’t generalize from these particulars about white bohunks (certainly not about me; why, I’d never), but every incidence of black on black and black on white violence seems to reflect on all blacks, leading to bad ends, so maybe I am culpable for the bohunks.
You know who really demands safe spaces? Conservatives, that’s who.
Also as a minor aside, I would ask those above who so blithely discount sociology as a legitimate field of intellectual inquiry to kindly get your head out of your ass. Your anti-intellectual priors are showing.
Thank You!
You know who really demands safe spaces? Conservatives, that’s who.
Also as a minor aside, I would ask those above who so blithely discount sociology as a legitimate field of intellectual inquiry to kindly get your head out of your ass. Your anti-intellectual priors are showing.
Thank You!
Not illegitimate. Just excessively narrow. With conclusions applied to cultures where they are actually inapplicable. If you think otherwise, may I respectfully suggest removing your cultural blinders.
It’s not anti-intellectualism. Just a preference for intellectual accuracy.
Not illegitimate. Just excessively narrow. With conclusions applied to cultures where they are actually inapplicable. If you think otherwise, may I respectfully suggest removing your cultural blinders.
It’s not anti-intellectualism. Just a preference for intellectual accuracy.
LOL, wj. Excessively narrow? Interesting. You dismiss an entire field of study because it is “too narrow”? Perhaps you could be more specific as to the nature of your complaint….or provide an example or two?
As we said in the olden times, keep on truckin’.
LOL, wj. Excessively narrow? Interesting. You dismiss an entire field of study because it is “too narrow”? Perhaps you could be more specific as to the nature of your complaint….or provide an example or two?
As we said in the olden times, keep on truckin’.
I’ll again invite you to google the Minnesota Paradox (which predates this George Floyd tragedy) where you may see that incremental progressive policies have achieved little if any real gains and have mostly served to give a false sense of accomplishment followed by an attendant period of neglect. The type of major structural change that we seem to need in our justice system will require broad consensus. A wise professor once told me that when you call someone a racist, you accomplish two things: You make yourself feel smug and you make the other person worse of a racist. In my opinion, calling someone a racist is not a brave act. Sometimes it’s necessary, but it is not a cause for self-congratulation or celebration.
If you don’t see a difference between the stilted dialog when race is involved and the dialog involving women’s rights or gay rights, then we’ve lived very different lives. Most white men have mothers, sisters, wives. Most white men have a family member who is gay. Race relations often do not have these built-in connections. To be clear, I’m not saying that issues involving gender or sexual orientation are or have been easy to manage, but they are relatively easier than racial issues in my opinion.
I’m only offering my opinion as to what is reasonable/constructive and I’m surprised when someone here agrees with me, not when they don’t.
Are you suggesting that I’m refusing to engage? I’m pretty much on board for a complete restructuring of police functions (“defunding” is a horrible phrase) including busting police unions and a national bad cop registry. I’ve always been in favor of sentencing reform and prison reform. I’m good with most of “8 Can’t Wait”. What have I done to give the impression that I’m a closeted Dixiecrat? Let’s see, I’ve been registered as a Democrat my entire adult life. I give money and legal time to Emily’s List and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I represent two sitting Democrats holding county-wide seats in the largest swing district in the largest swing state in the county. What did I do to garner assumptions of bad faith from progressives around here?
I’ll again invite you to google the Minnesota Paradox (which predates this George Floyd tragedy) where you may see that incremental progressive policies have achieved little if any real gains and have mostly served to give a false sense of accomplishment followed by an attendant period of neglect. The type of major structural change that we seem to need in our justice system will require broad consensus. A wise professor once told me that when you call someone a racist, you accomplish two things: You make yourself feel smug and you make the other person worse of a racist. In my opinion, calling someone a racist is not a brave act. Sometimes it’s necessary, but it is not a cause for self-congratulation or celebration.
If you don’t see a difference between the stilted dialog when race is involved and the dialog involving women’s rights or gay rights, then we’ve lived very different lives. Most white men have mothers, sisters, wives. Most white men have a family member who is gay. Race relations often do not have these built-in connections. To be clear, I’m not saying that issues involving gender or sexual orientation are or have been easy to manage, but they are relatively easier than racial issues in my opinion.
I’m only offering my opinion as to what is reasonable/constructive and I’m surprised when someone here agrees with me, not when they don’t.
Are you suggesting that I’m refusing to engage? I’m pretty much on board for a complete restructuring of police functions (“defunding” is a horrible phrase) including busting police unions and a national bad cop registry. I’ve always been in favor of sentencing reform and prison reform. I’m good with most of “8 Can’t Wait”. What have I done to give the impression that I’m a closeted Dixiecrat? Let’s see, I’ve been registered as a Democrat my entire adult life. I give money and legal time to Emily’s List and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I represent two sitting Democrats holding county-wide seats in the largest swing district in the largest swing state in the county. What did I do to garner assumptions of bad faith from progressives around here?
If I count as one of those progressives (dubious, I guess) you get no such assumption from me.
If I count as one of those progressives (dubious, I guess) you get no such assumption from me.
You dismiss an entire field of study because it is “too narrow”? Perhaps you could be more specific as to the nature of your complaint….or provide an example or two?
I’m not dismissing it. Except in so far as it claims a far broader reach than it actually has. A sociologist who talks about American or European society probably has something useful to say. At least, as good a chance as a researcher in any other field of study would have.
That same sociologist, applying his insights to India or Japan or China or West Africa? Not so much. But, in my experience, they routinely do exactly that. And don’t even realize that there might be a problem. If it was someone outside sociology doing it, DiAngelo would denounce them for white blindness — and in that case be correct.
I’ll see if I can dredge up some specific references. But I’m a lot of years past the time when I had that sort of stuff at my fingertips. So no promises.
You dismiss an entire field of study because it is “too narrow”? Perhaps you could be more specific as to the nature of your complaint….or provide an example or two?
I’m not dismissing it. Except in so far as it claims a far broader reach than it actually has. A sociologist who talks about American or European society probably has something useful to say. At least, as good a chance as a researcher in any other field of study would have.
That same sociologist, applying his insights to India or Japan or China or West Africa? Not so much. But, in my experience, they routinely do exactly that. And don’t even realize that there might be a problem. If it was someone outside sociology doing it, DiAngelo would denounce them for white blindness — and in that case be correct.
I’ll see if I can dredge up some specific references. But I’m a lot of years past the time when I had that sort of stuff at my fingertips. So no promises.
I just released some comments from the spam folder (go free little ones, go free)
Pollo, I think the thing that might be sticking in craws is this
Where McTX complains that for some on the left the “systematic racism” hammer has become their only (or at least most convenient) tool so everything they see looks like a nail, I agree. Where he complains that “systemic racism” is weaponized in a way that shuts down reasonable discussion and debate, I agree. This is especially troubling where there is an added layer that white people can’t see past their racism and are incapable, or at least crippled, in even discussing the issue.
McTX complains that for _all_ on the left, this is pervasive. Perhaps there was a line where he said that the left had a point, but I can’t remember it.
That ‘systemic racism’ is ‘weaponized’ (like voting rights, views about abortion or a million things aren’t?) is not some flaw with systemic racism, any idea can be weaponized. I don’t think that we can judge the worth or meaning of an idea just because it is or is not ‘weaponized’.
I just released some comments from the spam folder (go free little ones, go free)
Pollo, I think the thing that might be sticking in craws is this
Where McTX complains that for some on the left the “systematic racism” hammer has become their only (or at least most convenient) tool so everything they see looks like a nail, I agree. Where he complains that “systemic racism” is weaponized in a way that shuts down reasonable discussion and debate, I agree. This is especially troubling where there is an added layer that white people can’t see past their racism and are incapable, or at least crippled, in even discussing the issue.
McTX complains that for _all_ on the left, this is pervasive. Perhaps there was a line where he said that the left had a point, but I can’t remember it.
That ‘systemic racism’ is ‘weaponized’ (like voting rights, views about abortion or a million things aren’t?) is not some flaw with systemic racism, any idea can be weaponized. I don’t think that we can judge the worth or meaning of an idea just because it is or is not ‘weaponized’.
Louisiana Republicans react as if there may be a structure of racism that requires protection from threats of a mere study of police methods:
https://twitter.com/samkarlin/status/1270744619303809026
hat tip to Atrios
Louisiana Republicans react as if there may be a structure of racism that requires protection from threats of a mere study of police methods:
https://twitter.com/samkarlin/status/1270744619303809026
hat tip to Atrios
Having watered down the language in order to get something passed and get a study of police methods done, I hope the author will resubmit a resolution with the original language. Just to force the other legislators to go on record on the subject.
Having watered down the language in order to get something passed and get a study of police methods done, I hope the author will resubmit a resolution with the original language. Just to force the other legislators to go on record on the subject.
Obviously there are obtuse white people or bad faith claims of colorblindness but do you really think that weaponizing charges of racism (structural or otherwise) is going to fix that? The point isn’t that racism should not be discussed; the point is that instead of discussing it, some progressives come out of the blocks using it as a cudgel and then if the other side disagrees, the progressive levels the claim that the other side can’t see past their own racism and pulls a #dropmic. I’m not saying that all or even most progressive do this, but it certainly happens too often.
Not to suggest that you were saying otherwise, but “systemic racism” can both be real and have worth *and* also be weaponized. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I clearly disagreed with McTX re: his overly high bar for assigning systemic racism as the cause of disparate results for black Americans, I’m just sympathetic to charges of rhetorical abuse.
To be fair, perhaps being a white male raised in the south has made me overly sensitive to the challenges of discussing racism, but I don’t think so. I’ve spent time all over this country and my experience is that politics, abortion, religion, gay rights, you name it, can all be discussed more readily than racism. It’s our most intractable social problem and the most difficult to navigate. So while any politically charged issue can be weaponized, I think greater care needs to be taken doing so with racism.
Obviously there are obtuse white people or bad faith claims of colorblindness but do you really think that weaponizing charges of racism (structural or otherwise) is going to fix that? The point isn’t that racism should not be discussed; the point is that instead of discussing it, some progressives come out of the blocks using it as a cudgel and then if the other side disagrees, the progressive levels the claim that the other side can’t see past their own racism and pulls a #dropmic. I’m not saying that all or even most progressive do this, but it certainly happens too often.
Not to suggest that you were saying otherwise, but “systemic racism” can both be real and have worth *and* also be weaponized. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I clearly disagreed with McTX re: his overly high bar for assigning systemic racism as the cause of disparate results for black Americans, I’m just sympathetic to charges of rhetorical abuse.
To be fair, perhaps being a white male raised in the south has made me overly sensitive to the challenges of discussing racism, but I don’t think so. I’ve spent time all over this country and my experience is that politics, abortion, religion, gay rights, you name it, can all be discussed more readily than racism. It’s our most intractable social problem and the most difficult to navigate. So while any politically charged issue can be weaponized, I think greater care needs to be taken doing so with racism.
Classy as always. Thank you for that.
To the extent that it is unclear, I don’t take internet stuff too seriously and my grousing is mostly just for effect, but your sentiments are appreciated.
Classy as always. Thank you for that.
To the extent that it is unclear, I don’t take internet stuff too seriously and my grousing is mostly just for effect, but your sentiments are appreciated.
some progressives come out of the blocks using it as a cudgel and then if the other side disagrees, the progressive levels the claim that the other side can’t see past their own racism and pulls a #dropmic.
some probably do that.
most don’t.
some conservatives think every disagreement is a good reason to grab their gun and do some Armyman cosplay.
some progressives come out of the blocks using it as a cudgel and then if the other side disagrees, the progressive levels the claim that the other side can’t see past their own racism and pulls a #dropmic.
some probably do that.
most don’t.
some conservatives think every disagreement is a good reason to grab their gun and do some Armyman cosplay.
I think it may be one of those high-visibility/highly vocal things. It’s the people who live up to the stereotype of the overzealous SJW who get noticed the most, like the knuckleheads on the right cleek mentions playing militia. I guess I’d rather have someone weaponize a concept at me than point an actual weapon, but there’s no accounting for taste.
I think it may be one of those high-visibility/highly vocal things. It’s the people who live up to the stereotype of the overzealous SJW who get noticed the most, like the knuckleheads on the right cleek mentions playing militia. I guess I’d rather have someone weaponize a concept at me than point an actual weapon, but there’s no accounting for taste.
cleek and hsh … can I infer that neither of you think anyone within the ObWi Ivory Tower has recently weaponized a charge of racism?
cleek and hsh … can I infer that neither of you think anyone within the ObWi Ivory Tower has recently weaponized a charge of racism?
Sure, why not? But I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Sure, why not? But I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
if i’m responsible for anyone spitefully holding onto their racism because they just can’t stand being accused of being racist, i apologize.
if i’m responsible for anyone spitefully holding onto their racism because they just can’t stand being accused of being racist, i apologize.
Seems accurate, to me.
Everybody gets worked up about who the racist is. Or, who the *real* racist is.
That isn’t the point. There are people who are, straight up, racists. They think people with one color skin are better than people with other skin colors. They also tend to be haters of one variety or other.
Those people are a problem, but they are probably not the biggest problem. And they’re not really the problem we’re discussing here.
If “structural racism” is a bridge too far, maybe think about “pervasive racism”. Or “ambient racism”. Or “reflexive racism”, or “unthinking racism”.
Racism that is so normal that you don’t even notice it. But the effects of it are still there.
Racism that is rooted in things you think, but which you might not actually think about all that much. So they’re just there, causing you to make assumptions about people, and respond to people in certain ways, without being all that aware of it.
Black people – people whose ancestors came here from sub-Saharan Africa – lag behind white people in virtually every measure – social, economic, educational, health, likelihood of being incarcerated. You name it.
Why?
Are they just a bunch of fuck-ups? Or is something in their way?
I don’t think they are a bunch of fuck-ups. I think there are things in their way. And I think we all own a piece of the things that are in their way.
If “all” is just too much to hear, I’m happy to settle for 90%-plus.
If you think you’re totally color blind, you must just be one of that 10%. If that makes all of this discussion easier to absorb, go with that.
This problem is about how people who are not black, think about people who are black. It is not primarily a problem that black people caused. It is a problem that springs primarily from what white people think and do.
It is primarily a problem for white people to solve. And when I say “primarily”, I mean that if you don’t think it’s a problem for white people to solve, you may be part of the problem.
Maybe you’re one of those special 10%. In that case, I applaud you. Well done, you get a cookie.
The rest of us have work to do.
Seems accurate, to me.
Everybody gets worked up about who the racist is. Or, who the *real* racist is.
That isn’t the point. There are people who are, straight up, racists. They think people with one color skin are better than people with other skin colors. They also tend to be haters of one variety or other.
Those people are a problem, but they are probably not the biggest problem. And they’re not really the problem we’re discussing here.
If “structural racism” is a bridge too far, maybe think about “pervasive racism”. Or “ambient racism”. Or “reflexive racism”, or “unthinking racism”.
Racism that is so normal that you don’t even notice it. But the effects of it are still there.
Racism that is rooted in things you think, but which you might not actually think about all that much. So they’re just there, causing you to make assumptions about people, and respond to people in certain ways, without being all that aware of it.
Black people – people whose ancestors came here from sub-Saharan Africa – lag behind white people in virtually every measure – social, economic, educational, health, likelihood of being incarcerated. You name it.
Why?
Are they just a bunch of fuck-ups? Or is something in their way?
I don’t think they are a bunch of fuck-ups. I think there are things in their way. And I think we all own a piece of the things that are in their way.
If “all” is just too much to hear, I’m happy to settle for 90%-plus.
If you think you’re totally color blind, you must just be one of that 10%. If that makes all of this discussion easier to absorb, go with that.
This problem is about how people who are not black, think about people who are black. It is not primarily a problem that black people caused. It is a problem that springs primarily from what white people think and do.
It is primarily a problem for white people to solve. And when I say “primarily”, I mean that if you don’t think it’s a problem for white people to solve, you may be part of the problem.
Maybe you’re one of those special 10%. In that case, I applaud you. Well done, you get a cookie.
The rest of us have work to do.
Obviously there are obtuse white people or bad faith claims of colorblindness but do you really think that weaponizing charges of racism (structural or otherwise) is going to fix that?
(The way I read) your comment was that weaponizing racism was happening, therefore there was a reaction. My point was that weaponising racism was a reaction to that racism. So complaining about how it won’t work is not what you are asking.
One of the things that systemic racism does (unfortunately personifying it) is that it creates a situation where raising the issue becomes a ‘weaponization’. How should it be brought up in a way that doesn’t ‘weaponize’ it? Like Kaepernick did? Like BLM has? It seems that the system protects itself by creating any attempt to dismantle it as an accusation against itself that it has defended by the people within it without really understanding why they are defending it.
There is a longer post that may get out about how the recent turn to dramas about rogue AIs (think Voyager, Person of Interest) may reflect a concern with systemic racism, though I worry that the observation could be accused of claiming that the question is a flippant one.
Also, I’m a white man raised in the South (sort of and another post may describe who I ‘am’ in so far as I can if I can pull away time to write it) and I am speaking to you not as a liberal from Japan (though I am that too) but as one white person to another. So if you could grant me the measure of trust that I am who I say I am (another post about how less certitude in identity and where voices are going from is also bubbling around), you might want to consider what I’m saying.
As far as linking the violence we are seeing now to other kinds of violence, please take a look at this Gary Younge interview. It’s long, but I think it is worth it.
https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/5/june/black-lives-matter-george-floyd-the-question-of-violence-gary-young
Also, this tweet about a story by Dave Chappelle, shared by Kenny DeForest and then Jimmy Kimmel, via the Daily Mail, is worthwhile
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8387005/Jimmy-Kimmel-retweets-moving-story-Dave-Chappelle-educating-white-woman.html
Obviously there are obtuse white people or bad faith claims of colorblindness but do you really think that weaponizing charges of racism (structural or otherwise) is going to fix that?
(The way I read) your comment was that weaponizing racism was happening, therefore there was a reaction. My point was that weaponising racism was a reaction to that racism. So complaining about how it won’t work is not what you are asking.
One of the things that systemic racism does (unfortunately personifying it) is that it creates a situation where raising the issue becomes a ‘weaponization’. How should it be brought up in a way that doesn’t ‘weaponize’ it? Like Kaepernick did? Like BLM has? It seems that the system protects itself by creating any attempt to dismantle it as an accusation against itself that it has defended by the people within it without really understanding why they are defending it.
There is a longer post that may get out about how the recent turn to dramas about rogue AIs (think Voyager, Person of Interest) may reflect a concern with systemic racism, though I worry that the observation could be accused of claiming that the question is a flippant one.
Also, I’m a white man raised in the South (sort of and another post may describe who I ‘am’ in so far as I can if I can pull away time to write it) and I am speaking to you not as a liberal from Japan (though I am that too) but as one white person to another. So if you could grant me the measure of trust that I am who I say I am (another post about how less certitude in identity and where voices are going from is also bubbling around), you might want to consider what I’m saying.
As far as linking the violence we are seeing now to other kinds of violence, please take a look at this Gary Younge interview. It’s long, but I think it is worth it.
https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/5/june/black-lives-matter-george-floyd-the-question-of-violence-gary-young
Also, this tweet about a story by Dave Chappelle, shared by Kenny DeForest and then Jimmy Kimmel, via the Daily Mail, is worthwhile
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8387005/Jimmy-Kimmel-retweets-moving-story-Dave-Chappelle-educating-white-woman.html
PdM – To be fair, perhaps being a white male raised in the south has made me overly sensitive to the challenges of discussing racism, but I don’t think so. I’ve spent time all over this country and my experience is that politics, abortion, religion, gay rights, you name it, can all be discussed more readily than racism. It’s our most intractable social problem and the most difficult to navigate. So while any politically charged issue can be weaponized, I think greater care needs to be taken doing so with racism.
Looking at this from a anthropologically inflected rhetorical standpoint (which is my training and field), I think that the real sticking point in the discussion is not race per se, but rather that discussions of race undermine the public discourse in the US around merit and the idea that US society is meritocratic. People (white men in particular) have no difficulty saying that racism is a problem so long as there is no implication that their own personal worth and accomplishments are not thrown into question. The moment anyone raises the question of “privilege” it raises the possibility that the person involved has had an unfair advantage weighing in on their side and that they might not deserve all of the good outcomes they have received over the years.
This is a big cultural cleavage point between Americans and Europeans. Europeans as a whole are much more willing to see themselves as being acted upon by social forces and circumstances, where Americans are more likely to spin out a narrative of personal exceptionalism to justify their own successes.
Which is also why the most common critique about the idea of structural racism in the US seems to be that it gives black people too ready an excuse and prevents them from trying as hard to succeed [unsaid – as white people do].
Race. Meh. But don’t you dare imply that I haven’t earned everything I have ever achieved through my own personal merit. Them’s fighting words. Especially if the accomplishments are modest and the personal sacrifices keenly felt. That’s the inside pocket in which (working class) pride is kept.
PdM – To be fair, perhaps being a white male raised in the south has made me overly sensitive to the challenges of discussing racism, but I don’t think so. I’ve spent time all over this country and my experience is that politics, abortion, religion, gay rights, you name it, can all be discussed more readily than racism. It’s our most intractable social problem and the most difficult to navigate. So while any politically charged issue can be weaponized, I think greater care needs to be taken doing so with racism.
Looking at this from a anthropologically inflected rhetorical standpoint (which is my training and field), I think that the real sticking point in the discussion is not race per se, but rather that discussions of race undermine the public discourse in the US around merit and the idea that US society is meritocratic. People (white men in particular) have no difficulty saying that racism is a problem so long as there is no implication that their own personal worth and accomplishments are not thrown into question. The moment anyone raises the question of “privilege” it raises the possibility that the person involved has had an unfair advantage weighing in on their side and that they might not deserve all of the good outcomes they have received over the years.
This is a big cultural cleavage point between Americans and Europeans. Europeans as a whole are much more willing to see themselves as being acted upon by social forces and circumstances, where Americans are more likely to spin out a narrative of personal exceptionalism to justify their own successes.
Which is also why the most common critique about the idea of structural racism in the US seems to be that it gives black people too ready an excuse and prevents them from trying as hard to succeed [unsaid – as white people do].
Race. Meh. But don’t you dare imply that I haven’t earned everything I have ever achieved through my own personal merit. Them’s fighting words. Especially if the accomplishments are modest and the personal sacrifices keenly felt. That’s the inside pocket in which (working class) pride is kept.
The moment anyone raises the question of “privilege” it raises the possibility that the person involved has had an unfair advantage weighing in on their side and that they might not deserve all of the good outcomes they have received over the years.
I think the problem actually comes from the perception (correct or not) that they are being told that they have accomplished what they have only because of the unfair advantage that they had. Unfortunately, there are enough SJWs who explicitly use exactly that formulation to make it easy to take any suggestion of advantage that way. Even when it wasn’t intended.
The moment anyone raises the question of “privilege” it raises the possibility that the person involved has had an unfair advantage weighing in on their side and that they might not deserve all of the good outcomes they have received over the years.
I think the problem actually comes from the perception (correct or not) that they are being told that they have accomplished what they have only because of the unfair advantage that they had. Unfortunately, there are enough SJWs who explicitly use exactly that formulation to make it easy to take any suggestion of advantage that way. Even when it wasn’t intended.
Sorry for not replying to everyone, but a client dropped an emergency in my lap.
Quick comment: I 100% co-sign the following:
Semi-related Side Note: I used to represent someone heavily involved in the Marlboro Man ad campaign. If you think lawyers are cynical, talk to someone in advertising.
Sorry for not replying to everyone, but a client dropped an emergency in my lap.
Quick comment: I 100% co-sign the following:
Semi-related Side Note: I used to represent someone heavily involved in the Marlboro Man ad campaign. If you think lawyers are cynical, talk to someone in advertising.
lj, great Dave Chappelle story, thank you for linking it. Of such moments is change made.
I also think your 06.03 gets a lot right.
lj, great Dave Chappelle story, thank you for linking it. Of such moments is change made.
I also think your 06.03 gets a lot right.
they are being told that they have accomplished what they have only because of the unfair advantage that they had. Unfortunately, there are enough SJWs who explicitly use exactly that formulation
I’m happy to cop to being as embedded in the white liberal SJW universe as anybody ever needs to be.
And I have to say that this, as stated, is not really so.
You will find my SJW friends, in their thousands, saying that being white is a great big leg up in the game of life.
I don’t really think you’ll find all that many people saying that folks who are successful are only successful because they’re white.
I could be wrong, but I’d ask for some kind of documentary evidence in this case.
Italics + bold is strong medicine. I’m not seeing that the medicine is actually that strong.
they are being told that they have accomplished what they have only because of the unfair advantage that they had. Unfortunately, there are enough SJWs who explicitly use exactly that formulation
I’m happy to cop to being as embedded in the white liberal SJW universe as anybody ever needs to be.
And I have to say that this, as stated, is not really so.
You will find my SJW friends, in their thousands, saying that being white is a great big leg up in the game of life.
I don’t really think you’ll find all that many people saying that folks who are successful are only successful because they’re white.
I could be wrong, but I’d ask for some kind of documentary evidence in this case.
Italics + bold is strong medicine. I’m not seeing that the medicine is actually that strong.
Being a member of the “lucky sperm club” is far more of a boost than just being white.
In some cases, retroactive contraception is called for, but that’s a different topic.
Being a member of the “lucky sperm club” is far more of a boost than just being white.
In some cases, retroactive contraception is called for, but that’s a different topic.
I don’t really think you’ll find all that many people saying that folks who are successful are only successful because they’re white.
As noted, that often ISN’T what is being said. But it is, quite frequently, what is being heard. Getting past that hurdle will require reiterating, at great and tedious length, that an advantage isn’t the same as a guarantee of accomplishment. In a perfect world, that wouldn’t be true, but in this one it apparently is.
I don’t really think you’ll find all that many people saying that folks who are successful are only successful because they’re white.
As noted, that often ISN’T what is being said. But it is, quite frequently, what is being heard. Getting past that hurdle will require reiterating, at great and tedious length, that an advantage isn’t the same as a guarantee of accomplishment. In a perfect world, that wouldn’t be true, but in this one it apparently is.
I would also note that, listening to Dr DiAngelo, that’s what *I* heard her saying (if not explicitly in so many words then as an obvious, and repeated, implication). And I think I’m rather less twitchy than most.
I would also note that, listening to Dr DiAngelo, that’s what *I* heard her saying (if not explicitly in so many words then as an obvious, and repeated, implication). And I think I’m rather less twitchy than most.
hi wj,
This is more a placeholder, but it seems very clear to me that the sociological analysis that DiAngelo is doing is a sociology of the US, so the saying that she is applying that analysis globally is off the mark. The crowd she is speaking to, Seattle library supporters, would be a typical liberal group.
It’s a question one can argue whether the problems among liberals with white fragility are solely the problem of that demographic or indicative of a wider problem. But I note that people are moving the conversation over here, so apparently some think that it spills over from the carefully constructed walls I made in the other blog post.
hi wj,
This is more a placeholder, but it seems very clear to me that the sociological analysis that DiAngelo is doing is a sociology of the US, so the saying that she is applying that analysis globally is off the mark. The crowd she is speaking to, Seattle library supporters, would be a typical liberal group.
It’s a question one can argue whether the problems among liberals with white fragility are solely the problem of that demographic or indicative of a wider problem. But I note that people are moving the conversation over here, so apparently some think that it spills over from the carefully constructed walls I made in the other blog post.
I’ll post my comment related to wj’s interpretation over there…
I’ll post my comment related to wj’s interpretation over there…
Hi lj.
Actually, I think she is doing her analysis on a subset of the US. Specifically, on the social and cultural circles she lives in. It may be applicable more widely, but I’m not noticing any indication that she looked seriously at people outside that milieu. (Of course, that may be an artifact of the audience she was in front of.)
Hi lj.
Actually, I think she is doing her analysis on a subset of the US. Specifically, on the social and cultural circles she lives in. It may be applicable more widely, but I’m not noticing any indication that she looked seriously at people outside that milieu. (Of course, that may be an artifact of the audience she was in front of.)
She concentrates on American white progressives, but the socialization she discusses applies more widely.
She concentrates on American white progressives, but the socialization she discusses applies more widely.
wj, I don’t want to put this too sharply, but if she is doing her sociology on a subset, isn’t the questions about sociology being overly broad whataboutism?
I do think that the Japanese case can provide some interesting insights, but I’m going to warn you, I think it underlines what she is saying…
wj, I don’t want to put this too sharply, but if she is doing her sociology on a subset, isn’t the questions about sociology being overly broad whataboutism?
I do think that the Japanese case can provide some interesting insights, but I’m going to warn you, I think it underlines what she is saying…
What’s a little ironic is that DiAngelo aims her fire primarily at progressives, including herself, but the defensive response we’ve seen here is from the less-progressive commentators. You’d think she’d at least get a little credit for taking on her own political fellows and not laying it on conservatives.
What’s a little ironic is that DiAngelo aims her fire primarily at progressives, including herself, but the defensive response we’ve seen here is from the less-progressive commentators. You’d think she’d at least get a little credit for taking on her own political fellows and not laying it on conservatives.
Not sure why I used commentators instead of commenters. Maybe I miss televised sports.
Not sure why I used commentators instead of commenters. Maybe I miss televised sports.
lj, I’m not intending whataboutism. But i agree that my (pre)conception of sociology involves overgeneralizing a narrow base of data. It’s not that they are wrong about what they see in the population that they are looking at. Just that it’s not necessarily applicable beyond that population.
I’m looking forward to what you can tell us about the situation in Japan (and Korea, especially if that’s different). Regardless of whether it supports or contradicts my view. That’s how we learn.
lj, I’m not intending whataboutism. But i agree that my (pre)conception of sociology involves overgeneralizing a narrow base of data. It’s not that they are wrong about what they see in the population that they are looking at. Just that it’s not necessarily applicable beyond that population.
I’m looking forward to what you can tell us about the situation in Japan (and Korea, especially if that’s different). Regardless of whether it supports or contradicts my view. That’s how we learn.
hsh, looking back on it, I think you may be correct that she is aiming her remarks at her fellow progressives. But I, at least, missed that on initial hearing.
I suppose it’s the risk that comes to speaking before one audience, and then having your speech rebroadcast to a far wider (and different) one. Some of the in-jokes and nuances get lost.
hsh, looking back on it, I think you may be correct that she is aiming her remarks at her fellow progressives. But I, at least, missed that on initial hearing.
I suppose it’s the risk that comes to speaking before one audience, and then having your speech rebroadcast to a far wider (and different) one. Some of the in-jokes and nuances get lost.
Why I love having an Open Thread: I’m too lazy to start a new post over something like this.
In case anyone wasn’t clear that Trump is a true believer in the Lost Cause, we have this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rejects-calls-to-rename-military-bases-honoring-confederate-generals/2020/06/10/78a06122-ab53-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html
Guess that makes the renaming one more (admittedly minor, if symbolic) item on Biden’s plate in January.
Why I love having an Open Thread: I’m too lazy to start a new post over something like this.
In case anyone wasn’t clear that Trump is a true believer in the Lost Cause, we have this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rejects-calls-to-rename-military-bases-honoring-confederate-generals/2020/06/10/78a06122-ab53-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html
Guess that makes the renaming one more (admittedly minor, if symbolic) item on Biden’s plate in January.
hsh, but we all, here, consider ourselves progressive on this issue.
hsh, but we all, here, consider ourselves progressive on this issue.
I bet if the proposed military base renaming was to change it from some old dead confederates to TRUMP, he’d be on it like white on rice.
I bet if the proposed military base renaming was to change it from some old dead confederates to TRUMP, he’d be on it like white on rice.
Camp Trump No. 8…
Camp Trump No. 8…
Yup. It wouldn’t be fair if only one state had the utterly awesome honor of hosting a base named after Trump.
Yup. It wouldn’t be fair if only one state had the utterly awesome honor of hosting a base named after Trump.
Camp Trump No. 8…
No thanks. The licensing fees for the name are too high.
Somebody’s gotta pay for that golden toilet, but I’m not interested in having public money go for it.
Camp Trump No. 8…
No thanks. The licensing fees for the name are too high.
Somebody’s gotta pay for that golden toilet, but I’m not interested in having public money go for it.
Ego is more important than anything. Even money. Witness his campaign wasting money on running ads in the DC area . . . just so Trump will see them and feel good.
So he’ll waive license fees in order to get bases. At least, the fees will get waived, even if his staff cooks the books so he doesn’t find out it happened.
Ego is more important than anything. Even money. Witness his campaign wasting money on running ads in the DC area . . . just so Trump will see them and feel good.
So he’ll waive license fees in order to get bases. At least, the fees will get waived, even if his staff cooks the books so he doesn’t find out it happened.
Looks like the class has matriculated to a course for which I have not met the prerequisites (which is fine), but I hate not to respond to substantive posts directed to me …
I’m less complaining that it won’t work and more complaining that it makes the problem worse.
I don’t think that the issue can’t be raised without weaponizing it. In broad strokes, BLM and Kaepernick have not resorted to weaponizing. I’m certainly not suggesting that there is or should be a Catch-22 here. The problem is that systemic racism foists itself on people of good faith who are just doing their job. Do we really think that automatically calling a cop who serves a no-knock warrant “RACIST” is going to help bring that cop over to seeing our side of things? That cop is just following orders and almost certainly didn’t seek the warrant (a detective and/or ADA did). And before someone grasps at the easy Nuremberg analogy, I’m going to pre-Godwin this.
LJ, I have no doubt as to your good faith in discussing this or that the Venn diagram of our formative years has significant overlap Your “otherness” may have been a little more obvious than mine, but just because I looked like a circa 1939 Luftwaffe recruiting poster, being named Jewy McJewerson in small-town South Carolina carried a bit of baggage.
Thanks for the Chappelle story, but doesn’t it kind of make my point? He specifically did not weaponize any charge of racism. He took the time educate without grabbing the low handing fruit. If you think that I have a problem with actions like Chappelle’s, then I have not expressed myself very well or this thread is another example of the low signal to noise ratio when issues of race are discussed.
Looks like the class has matriculated to a course for which I have not met the prerequisites (which is fine), but I hate not to respond to substantive posts directed to me …
I’m less complaining that it won’t work and more complaining that it makes the problem worse.
I don’t think that the issue can’t be raised without weaponizing it. In broad strokes, BLM and Kaepernick have not resorted to weaponizing. I’m certainly not suggesting that there is or should be a Catch-22 here. The problem is that systemic racism foists itself on people of good faith who are just doing their job. Do we really think that automatically calling a cop who serves a no-knock warrant “RACIST” is going to help bring that cop over to seeing our side of things? That cop is just following orders and almost certainly didn’t seek the warrant (a detective and/or ADA did). And before someone grasps at the easy Nuremberg analogy, I’m going to pre-Godwin this.
LJ, I have no doubt as to your good faith in discussing this or that the Venn diagram of our formative years has significant overlap Your “otherness” may have been a little more obvious than mine, but just because I looked like a circa 1939 Luftwaffe recruiting poster, being named Jewy McJewerson in small-town South Carolina carried a bit of baggage.
Thanks for the Chappelle story, but doesn’t it kind of make my point? He specifically did not weaponize any charge of racism. He took the time educate without grabbing the low handing fruit. If you think that I have a problem with actions like Chappelle’s, then I have not expressed myself very well or this thread is another example of the low signal to noise ratio when issues of race are discussed.
Nous – I completely agree with your points here, but to the extent that this is baked into the cake, don’t we need to account for it if our goal is to win hearts and minds? My sense is that those on the left who weaponize charges of racism (a) revel in calling those who disagree racist because it assuages their own white guilt and/or makes them feel smug/superior; or (b) have made a good faith calculation the only way to untie this Gordian knot is with a rhetorical sword. I’m pissed off at (a) and respectfully disagree with (b).
Nous – I completely agree with your points here, but to the extent that this is baked into the cake, don’t we need to account for it if our goal is to win hearts and minds? My sense is that those on the left who weaponize charges of racism (a) revel in calling those who disagree racist because it assuages their own white guilt and/or makes them feel smug/superior; or (b) have made a good faith calculation the only way to untie this Gordian knot is with a rhetorical sword. I’m pissed off at (a) and respectfully disagree with (b).
I’m pissed off at (a) and respectfully disagree with (b).
Likewise. I am inclined to think a) substantially more common than b). But that may be just my own, possibly atypical, experiences talking.
I’m pissed off at (a) and respectfully disagree with (b).
Likewise. I am inclined to think a) substantially more common than b). But that may be just my own, possibly atypical, experiences talking.
also c) they’re simply really sick of racism.
also c) they’re simply really sick of racism.
hsh, but we all, here, consider ourselves progressive on this issue.
I’d guess most people, at least in some sense, consider themselves progressive on the issue of race – in the sense that they don’t consider themselves to be racist. But her talk was aimed at people who strongly identify as progressives generally and who are likely to consider themselves especially non-racist (or perhaps, more strongly, anti-racist). And she’s pointing out to them, the people who think they’re so much better on race than most other people, that they’re not as good on race as they think.
Do we really think that automatically calling a cop who serves a no-knock warrant “RACIST” is going to help bring that cop over to seeing our side of things? That cop is just following orders and almost certainly didn’t seek the warrant (a detective and/or ADA did).
Maybe this was not in response to our earlier discussion on no-knock warrants, but I don’t think anyone suggested that a cop serving a no-knock warrant was automatically racist. The discussion was about policing reforms that would enhance overall public safety – real public safety – as opposed to zealous enforcement. No-knock warrants are grossly overused and dangerous.
It’s funny that you brought up the fact that the warrant isn’t sought by the officer serving it. I was going to bring that up in my discussion with McKinney, because it underlies my point about the assumption that the suspect must be highly dangerous if you were resorting to such a high-risk tactic, with a likelihood of setting off a gunfight when there otherwise was no immediate danger to anyone. The person who sought the warrant isn’t the one going into the house, and maybe the suspect isn’t really all that dangerous, meaning the risks of a no-knock warrant aren’t, um … warranted. The guys going into the house are super jacked-up none the less, though, because they have to assume they’re going after someone who’s extremely dangerous, meaning they’re that much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
It’s kind of a nutty thing to do, and should be reserved for only the most extreme circumstances.
hsh, but we all, here, consider ourselves progressive on this issue.
I’d guess most people, at least in some sense, consider themselves progressive on the issue of race – in the sense that they don’t consider themselves to be racist. But her talk was aimed at people who strongly identify as progressives generally and who are likely to consider themselves especially non-racist (or perhaps, more strongly, anti-racist). And she’s pointing out to them, the people who think they’re so much better on race than most other people, that they’re not as good on race as they think.
Do we really think that automatically calling a cop who serves a no-knock warrant “RACIST” is going to help bring that cop over to seeing our side of things? That cop is just following orders and almost certainly didn’t seek the warrant (a detective and/or ADA did).
Maybe this was not in response to our earlier discussion on no-knock warrants, but I don’t think anyone suggested that a cop serving a no-knock warrant was automatically racist. The discussion was about policing reforms that would enhance overall public safety – real public safety – as opposed to zealous enforcement. No-knock warrants are grossly overused and dangerous.
It’s funny that you brought up the fact that the warrant isn’t sought by the officer serving it. I was going to bring that up in my discussion with McKinney, because it underlies my point about the assumption that the suspect must be highly dangerous if you were resorting to such a high-risk tactic, with a likelihood of setting off a gunfight when there otherwise was no immediate danger to anyone. The person who sought the warrant isn’t the one going into the house, and maybe the suspect isn’t really all that dangerous, meaning the risks of a no-knock warrant aren’t, um … warranted. The guys going into the house are super jacked-up none the less, though, because they have to assume they’re going after someone who’s extremely dangerous, meaning they’re that much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
It’s kind of a nutty thing to do, and should be reserved for only the most extreme circumstances.
nous, I realize that the conversation has moved on. But I came across this about Philadelphia police officer Joseph Bologna, who was filmed beating protesters:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/10/philadelphia-joseph-bologna-suspended/
I’m having trouble seeing those t-shirt sales as just the union insisting on due process.
nous, I realize that the conversation has moved on. But I came across this about Philadelphia police officer Joseph Bologna, who was filmed beating protesters:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/10/philadelphia-joseph-bologna-suspended/
I’m having trouble seeing those t-shirt sales as just the union insisting on due process.
Agreed, wj. Unions are people in the same way that corporations are people. In this case, those people are mostly assholes, so it reinforces the power of that assholery.
Police culture, to me, looks like the culture of abusers and uses a lot of the same language to justify the same sort of violence in the name of preserving the same sort of social order.
My problem is that I cannot see a way to legally prevent assholes from unionizing or gaining protection during collective bargaining that doesn’t also take those rights away from all the public unions that are not made up of a majority of abusive assholes.
Agreed, wj. Unions are people in the same way that corporations are people. In this case, those people are mostly assholes, so it reinforces the power of that assholery.
Police culture, to me, looks like the culture of abusers and uses a lot of the same language to justify the same sort of violence in the name of preserving the same sort of social order.
My problem is that I cannot see a way to legally prevent assholes from unionizing or gaining protection during collective bargaining that doesn’t also take those rights away from all the public unions that are not made up of a majority of abusive assholes.
Agreed, it’s not a trivial problem. But I think it may be important to figure out a way to insulate yourselves from a blowback that seems increasingly likely.
Agreed, it’s not a trivial problem. But I think it may be important to figure out a way to insulate yourselves from a blowback that seems increasingly likely.
pardon my weapon.
he’s also a medical doctor.
pardon my weapon.
he’s also a medical doctor.
Connections…
“Goines had been the one and only witness when he arrested Floyd back on Feb. 5, 2004, for supposedly providing him with less than a gram of cocaine. The prosecutor originally offered Floyd two years in prison if he pleaded guilty. Floyd balked but finally agreed when the offer was reduced to 10 months.
Had he gone to trial, he would have faced serious time. And, as in any case based solely on the word of the arresting officer, it would have come down to whom the jury was going to believe: He said, Cop said.”
The Monster Cop Who Encountered George Floyd in Houston: Years before a monster cop in Minneapolis cut George Floyd’s life tragically short, Gerald Goines carried out an insidiously routine bit of police misconduct in Houston on Floyd.
Connections…
“Goines had been the one and only witness when he arrested Floyd back on Feb. 5, 2004, for supposedly providing him with less than a gram of cocaine. The prosecutor originally offered Floyd two years in prison if he pleaded guilty. Floyd balked but finally agreed when the offer was reduced to 10 months.
Had he gone to trial, he would have faced serious time. And, as in any case based solely on the word of the arresting officer, it would have come down to whom the jury was going to believe: He said, Cop said.”
The Monster Cop Who Encountered George Floyd in Houston: Years before a monster cop in Minneapolis cut George Floyd’s life tragically short, Gerald Goines carried out an insidiously routine bit of police misconduct in Houston on Floyd.
The guys going into the house are super jacked-up none the less, though, because they have to assume they’re going after someone who’s extremely dangerous, meaning they’re that much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
via BJ: Confessions of a Former Bastard Cop:
the whole thing is worth reading (even if it looks like i must have copied it all here already!)
The guys going into the house are super jacked-up none the less, though, because they have to assume they’re going after someone who’s extremely dangerous, meaning they’re that much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
via BJ: Confessions of a Former Bastard Cop:
the whole thing is worth reading (even if it looks like i must have copied it all here already!)
Yes, it was worth reading, and I can attest to the fact that cleek didn’t come close to copying the whole thing. There’s a lot there.
Yes, it was worth reading, and I can attest to the fact that cleek didn’t come close to copying the whole thing. There’s a lot there.
After reading the piece at cleek’s link, I see this:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-drowns-officers-coming-aid-family-fired/story?id=71172077
After reading the piece at cleek’s link, I see this:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-drowns-officers-coming-aid-family-fired/story?id=71172077
So, Trump is kicking off a round of 2020 campaign rallies a week from tomorrow.
June 19. In Tulsa, OK.
June 19 is Juneteenth. If you don’t know what that is, go look it up.
Tulsa OK is the site of the worst anti-black riot in post-Civil-War American history.
What to make of this? Just a.. coincidence? Or the POTUS playing on some of the worst of our national history to bait his opponents, fire up his base, and own the libs.
What does it mean that a lot of people will celebrate that, embrace it, find validation in it?
We got a long way to go. Still. And since this is our country, our history, our culture, our society, we all own a piece of it.
It’s not just, or even primarily, about any of our individual, personal intentions. Racism is not just the personal foible of some number of people, it’s a dynamic that is pervasive enough that a candidate for national office can leverage it, play off of it, make use of it for electoral advantage.
If you don’t want to call that “structural”, that’s fine with me. I’m content to put aside post-modernist lingo, fall back to the demotic, and just say it’s baked in the cake.
So, Trump is kicking off a round of 2020 campaign rallies a week from tomorrow.
June 19. In Tulsa, OK.
June 19 is Juneteenth. If you don’t know what that is, go look it up.
Tulsa OK is the site of the worst anti-black riot in post-Civil-War American history.
What to make of this? Just a.. coincidence? Or the POTUS playing on some of the worst of our national history to bait his opponents, fire up his base, and own the libs.
What does it mean that a lot of people will celebrate that, embrace it, find validation in it?
We got a long way to go. Still. And since this is our country, our history, our culture, our society, we all own a piece of it.
It’s not just, or even primarily, about any of our individual, personal intentions. Racism is not just the personal foible of some number of people, it’s a dynamic that is pervasive enough that a candidate for national office can leverage it, play off of it, make use of it for electoral advantage.
If you don’t want to call that “structural”, that’s fine with me. I’m content to put aside post-modernist lingo, fall back to the demotic, and just say it’s baked in the cake.
Turns out Breonna Taylor was not murdered after all. Nary a bullet hole at the deconstructed crime scene.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a32837161/breonna-taylor-louisville-police-report/
So, never mind, we’re off the hook.
She was re-assigned to Alaska where they will count to one hundred as she runs away and then Donald Trump Jr. will hunt her down from the air and finish things up, according to Precinct Captain Foucault.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a32842154/trump-reverse-obama-alaska-hunting-regulations-bear-cubs/
Meanwhile, pass the popcorn. Antifa is wilding in the streets and we’re under orders to let them make Black Lives Matter look bad.
Should we order pizza, or has the pizza joint down the street been burned to the ground already? We hope Hillary and her Child Molester Ring were able to find their way out of the basement thru the smoke and debris.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-chicago-police-looting-popcorn-20200611-je3afw3lxbhknicv37ijnncgkq-story.html
It’s amazing how structurally coincident the calendar is on June 19th.
Neshoba County seems to have high political traffic too in Republican Party Presidential campaigns.
Turns out Breonna Taylor was not murdered after all. Nary a bullet hole at the deconstructed crime scene.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a32837161/breonna-taylor-louisville-police-report/
So, never mind, we’re off the hook.
She was re-assigned to Alaska where they will count to one hundred as she runs away and then Donald Trump Jr. will hunt her down from the air and finish things up, according to Precinct Captain Foucault.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a32842154/trump-reverse-obama-alaska-hunting-regulations-bear-cubs/
Meanwhile, pass the popcorn. Antifa is wilding in the streets and we’re under orders to let them make Black Lives Matter look bad.
Should we order pizza, or has the pizza joint down the street been burned to the ground already? We hope Hillary and her Child Molester Ring were able to find their way out of the basement thru the smoke and debris.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-chicago-police-looting-popcorn-20200611-je3afw3lxbhknicv37ijnncgkq-story.html
It’s amazing how structurally coincident the calendar is on June 19th.
Neshoba County seems to have high political traffic too in Republican Party Presidential campaigns.
Tulsa OK is the site of the worst anti-black riot in post-Civil-War American history.
What to make of this? Just a.. coincidence? Or the POTUS playing on some of the worst of our national history to bait his opponents, fire up his base, and own the libs.
Like it’s a coincidence that Trump is scheduled to accept the nomination on August 27 in Jacksonville, FL. (Google “Ax Handle Saturday” for more info.) Once is a coincidence. In this case, twice is enough to rate “enemy action”.
Tulsa OK is the site of the worst anti-black riot in post-Civil-War American history.
What to make of this? Just a.. coincidence? Or the POTUS playing on some of the worst of our national history to bait his opponents, fire up his base, and own the libs.
Like it’s a coincidence that Trump is scheduled to accept the nomination on August 27 in Jacksonville, FL. (Google “Ax Handle Saturday” for more info.) Once is a coincidence. In this case, twice is enough to rate “enemy action”.
I’m sure this is intentional. Since it’s not official the campaign can drop it out there and wait for the press to blow up. If it runs badly, then they can always claim that it was fake news and nothing has been decided. Then later they can either announce a different venue or they can come in and announce that they had not intended to do it at first, but they will not allow the paranoid fantasies of the antifa bully them out of helping the great state of Florida or be so cruel to the good people who live there now.
All they really have to do is make sure that they time the ultimate decision correctly and they get to own the libs either way.
I’m sure this is intentional. Since it’s not official the campaign can drop it out there and wait for the press to blow up. If it runs badly, then they can always claim that it was fake news and nothing has been decided. Then later they can either announce a different venue or they can come in and announce that they had not intended to do it at first, but they will not allow the paranoid fantasies of the antifa bully them out of helping the great state of Florida or be so cruel to the good people who live there now.
All they really have to do is make sure that they time the ultimate decision correctly and they get to own the libs either way.
Tried to post two long comments last night, but then something went haywire with the blog. Anyway, this is to Pollo
Pollo, but in a sense, you are calling on every african american to be, well, a genius. And even as a genius, Dave Chappelle nearly got run over by the steamroller of fame.
Chappelle is also famous for his story about Iceberg Slim. Here is the youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGkywE_uCEI
and here is an analysis
https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/7otby5/what_chappelle_was_saying_by_telling_us_the_story/
Also, a question. Do you think DiAngelo is in category a or b?
Tried to post two long comments last night, but then something went haywire with the blog. Anyway, this is to Pollo
Pollo, but in a sense, you are calling on every african american to be, well, a genius. And even as a genius, Dave Chappelle nearly got run over by the steamroller of fame.
Chappelle is also famous for his story about Iceberg Slim. Here is the youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGkywE_uCEI
and here is an analysis
https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/7otby5/what_chappelle_was_saying_by_telling_us_the_story/
Also, a question. Do you think DiAngelo is in category a or b?
Do you think DiAngelo is in category a or b?
Insufficient information. Any guess I made would necessarily be based entirely on prejudice and stereotyping.** Which I really do try to avoid, however unsuccessfully in many cases. 😉
** Unless I took the time to research all her published work. Which I really can’t.
Do you think DiAngelo is in category a or b?
Insufficient information. Any guess I made would necessarily be based entirely on prejudice and stereotyping.** Which I really do try to avoid, however unsuccessfully in many cases. 😉
** Unless I took the time to research all her published work. Which I really can’t.
I don’t have the intellectual chops to judge DiAngelo’s thesis. But there are more than a few metanarratives floating around. And many of them can be characterized as fairy castles in the air. The smarter you are, the larger, more intricate, and lavish your castle can be.
I don’t have the intellectual chops to judge DiAngelo’s thesis. But there are more than a few metanarratives floating around. And many of them can be characterized as fairy castles in the air. The smarter you are, the larger, more intricate, and lavish your castle can be.
If you’re not down with Foucalt, you don’t get to go on about metanarratives.
It’s a pretty free-wheeling blog, but even we have standards.
🙂
If you’re not down with Foucalt, you don’t get to go on about metanarratives.
It’s a pretty free-wheeling blog, but even we have standards.
🙂
I don’t think that I am and that was certainly not my intent. First, in my personal experience, the Type A weaponizer is almost always white. Maybe there’s an issue to unpack where systemic racism is holding back my black friends, but the fact remains that I’m mostly seeing white folks engage in this behavior which pisses me off because to the extent that my old prof was right, and calling someone a racist makes them worse of a racist, these white folks are throwing fuel on a fire that won’t (directly) burn them.
Second, I’m not suggesting that everyone rise to Chappelle’s genius, just his intent. I mean FFS, if Chappelle can show grace under these circumstances, then a white person can.
I can’t say because I have not watched the video all the way through … busy week at work and my wife and I have instituted a “no news/no politics” rule in the evenings. Based on my limited understanding, DiAngelo would be sympathetic to the notion that due to their “fragility”, white liberals tend to engage in actions that make them feel better (or at least less guilty) without really making change. That aligns with my sense of the white liberal weaponizing charges of racism to assuage their own feelings of guilt but then not doing anything to really improve things.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I’ll mention the Minnesota Paradox again. You have these progressive Twin Cities that check all the boxes in terms of creating the appearance of being woke, but the measurable results for black folks there are much worse than average. One explanation is that throwing $15,000 at a study of police violence and creating a toothless citizen review board allows white folks to feel like they are “doing the right thing” without actually getting anything done and resulting in complacency for real change. That’s the Type A weaponizer: Making themselves feel better without accomplishing anything other than potentially making things worse (creating complacency on the part of the white liberal and shaming the target into being more racist).
I don’t think that I am and that was certainly not my intent. First, in my personal experience, the Type A weaponizer is almost always white. Maybe there’s an issue to unpack where systemic racism is holding back my black friends, but the fact remains that I’m mostly seeing white folks engage in this behavior which pisses me off because to the extent that my old prof was right, and calling someone a racist makes them worse of a racist, these white folks are throwing fuel on a fire that won’t (directly) burn them.
Second, I’m not suggesting that everyone rise to Chappelle’s genius, just his intent. I mean FFS, if Chappelle can show grace under these circumstances, then a white person can.
I can’t say because I have not watched the video all the way through … busy week at work and my wife and I have instituted a “no news/no politics” rule in the evenings. Based on my limited understanding, DiAngelo would be sympathetic to the notion that due to their “fragility”, white liberals tend to engage in actions that make them feel better (or at least less guilty) without really making change. That aligns with my sense of the white liberal weaponizing charges of racism to assuage their own feelings of guilt but then not doing anything to really improve things.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I’ll mention the Minnesota Paradox again. You have these progressive Twin Cities that check all the boxes in terms of creating the appearance of being woke, but the measurable results for black folks there are much worse than average. One explanation is that throwing $15,000 at a study of police violence and creating a toothless citizen review board allows white folks to feel like they are “doing the right thing” without actually getting anything done and resulting in complacency for real change. That’s the Type A weaponizer: Making themselves feel better without accomplishing anything other than potentially making things worse (creating complacency on the part of the white liberal and shaming the target into being more racist).
That’s the Type A weaponizer: Making themselves feel better without accomplishing anything other than potentially making things worse (creating complacency on the part of the white liberal and shaming the target into being more racist).
What I took from DiAngelo on this is that this sort of weaponization stems from the good-person/bad-person dichotomy that people tend to frame racism in. The white liberal says, “I’m a good person. Racists are bad people. Therefore, I can’t be racist.” But the logic when applied outwardly to others is “That person is racist. Racists are bad people. Therefore, that person is bad.” So it’s then okay to attack the bad racist person, especially if you’re (supposedly) free of the flaw that’s present in the other person.
That’s the Type A weaponizer: Making themselves feel better without accomplishing anything other than potentially making things worse (creating complacency on the part of the white liberal and shaming the target into being more racist).
What I took from DiAngelo on this is that this sort of weaponization stems from the good-person/bad-person dichotomy that people tend to frame racism in. The white liberal says, “I’m a good person. Racists are bad people. Therefore, I can’t be racist.” But the logic when applied outwardly to others is “That person is racist. Racists are bad people. Therefore, that person is bad.” So it’s then okay to attack the bad racist person, especially if you’re (supposedly) free of the flaw that’s present in the other person.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/12/john-bolton-donald-trumps-ukraine-pressure-campaign-not-only-misstep/3174347001/
“John Bolton’s book expected to allege that Ukraine wasn’t Trump’s only foreign misconduct”
Revenge is a dish best served cold!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/12/john-bolton-donald-trumps-ukraine-pressure-campaign-not-only-misstep/3174347001/
“John Bolton’s book expected to allege that Ukraine wasn’t Trump’s only foreign misconduct”
Revenge is a dish best served cold!
Even more, apparently Bolton says that every Trump administration foreign policy decision was solely and exclusively motivated by reelection considerations.
Even more, apparently Bolton says that every Trump administration foreign policy decision was solely and exclusively motivated by reelection considerations.
Open thread
GftNC,
Lots of cool stuff in this Dylan interview if you havent seen it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/arts/music/bob-dylan-rough-and-rowdy-ways.html
Open thread
GftNC,
Lots of cool stuff in this Dylan interview if you havent seen it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/arts/music/bob-dylan-rough-and-rowdy-ways.html
Had not seen it – settling down to read it now – thanks, Marty!
Had not seen it – settling down to read it now – thanks, Marty!
Bluegrass music is mysterious and deep rooted and you almost have to be born playing it. Just because you are a great singer, or a great this or that doesn’t mean you can be in a bluegrass band. It’s almost like classical music. It’s harmonic and meditative, but it’s out for blood.
My bold. There is nobody like him.
Bluegrass music is mysterious and deep rooted and you almost have to be born playing it. Just because you are a great singer, or a great this or that doesn’t mean you can be in a bluegrass band. It’s almost like classical music. It’s harmonic and meditative, but it’s out for blood.
My bold. There is nobody like him.
It was awesome.
It was awesome.